Come on, Slashdotters. What's with the frowns on everyone's faces. Why is everyone taking these dupes so negatively? Just think of these dupes as reruns. We would love to crack jokes about Windows viruses, talk about how Linux should be used for everything, talk about how "creative" stuffing viruses in MP3 players are, and....
Oh, scratch the sarcasm. These dupes really are annoying.
To reinforce my point, the major drawback to Linux is simply 'death by committee'. Too many people wanting too many different things and nothing gets done. And what does get done is usually only half-assed in its implementation. Not all things on Linux, but the vast majority of them. What Linux needs is exactly two things that Apple has; one vision and strong leadership.... Otherwise, Linux will always be 2nd or 3rd to something else.
To further elaborate on your point, all Linux is is the kernel. The main problem is that everybody has created these incompatible toolkits (GTK, QT) and all of the applications built around those toolkits, yet all of the distributions built around the kernel and the OSes are called "Linux." There is no KDE Operating System or GNOME Operating System; that would make everything much easier in the eyes of a user. Instead, we have Mandrake, Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian, Yoper, Mepis, Puppy, Yellow Dog, Slackware, SuSE, and a myraid of other "distributions" that all call themselves "Linux," even though from the eyes of the user, they could be considered separate OSes. When a user attempts to set up a Linux machine, they must know the difference between the console and X11, the difference between KDE and GNOME apps, the difference between QT, GTK, and GTK+ apps, and some more structural information. They must learn what a kernel is and occasionally must learn how to recompile it to support some exotic piece of hardware. They must deal with the minor but annoying incompatibilities between certain applications. Many people cannot handle all of the technical knowledge they must learn and some of the unpolished portions of using a traditional Linux desktop, so they either go back to Big Daddy Bill Gates's Operating System or pay the cost to get Jobs's box. The problem with Linux on the desktop is lack of cohesion, but since Linus himself just made the kernel, and other people took the kernel into many different directions, we'll be stuck with this problem for end-users for a long time.
IMO, the best way for Linux to make a splash in the desktop is to did what Apple did to BSD: divorce it from the rest of the *nix world by creating their own graphical environment (Aqua) and their own toolkits (Carbon and Cocoa), and by not referring to OS X as a BSD. Imagine a new Linux distribution^W^W Linux-based operating system with a brand spanking new graphic system (no more of that ancient X cruft, something completely different) and a brand new toolkit to facilitate programming (none of that ugly Xlib stuff; start out with something similar to QT, GTK, Carbon/Cocoa or even Win32). Oh yeah, and it shouldn't be marketed as a Linux distribution. Instead, it should be marketed as a completely new operating system (although it has a Linux core) in order to prevent user confusion. It should be just as easy to use and just as attractive, if not, better than Mac OS X.
A great Linux-based operating system that is easy to use, has great applications, isn't encumbered with old cruft that confuses users, and is 100% free (as in both beer and speech) would make a huge splash in Window's marketshare. Granted, it will probably take about 5-10 years in order for this dream to come true, but I believe that it will be worth the wait for everybody.
Yeah, but there are certain occasions where Firefox is of no help (e.g., IE-only web pages, ActiveX stuff, etc.). An IE plugin with these security features would tremendously cut down on some of the major malware problems that many people are currently facing. All without having to switch browsers, too.
Don't get me wrong, I love Firefox as much as the next Slashdotter, but don't we all want a more secure Internet Explorer for our Windows-using friends as well?
Did you read the parent post? He said that he needed all of those specific applications for his job. He really does need those applications, and since he bought the Windows versions of those software and made a huge investment, he is going to stick to Windows for the near future, whether us *nix users like it or not.
Yes, the GIMP, Scribus, OpenOffice, and GNUcash are all nice programs. (No, I don't know an OSS replacement for Maya; Scribus is more or less equivalent to PageMaker). However, they are still missing all of the features that Photoshop, PageMaker, MS Office, and MS Money offers. When you need the latter applications for your professional job, and if they aren't available to alternative OSes without shelling out thousands of dollars or fiddling around with Wine and virtual environments, then you have no choice but to stick to Windows.
And Windows (as of 2000, XP, and Server 2003) isn't that bad of an operating system now of days. Sure, you're going to have to watch your back when it comes to security, but the NT-derived versions of Windows aren't too bad. As long as it runs all of the applications that he needs, then he shouldn't have a reason to switch to Mac OS X or *nix.
Will the promise of the same feature set and the same tools (for Windows, Mac and Linux) mean the future of cross-platform development is here?"
Because all mainstream personal computers will use the same x86 processor in the next two years, certain programmers who deal with assembly issues will be relieved. However, we still have Carbon/Cocoa, Win32, and GTK/QT/POSIX to deal with.
And we currently have cross-platform tools. It's called the GNU toolkit (autoconf, gcc, gdb, gmake, and a few other handy applications that are used on just about every platform availiable).
Compassion should come from the hearts of the people. Compassion shouldn't be enforced by the government through taxes. That's not compassion; that's coercion.
And why do you advocate taking money away from the rich to give it to other people? You must think that all rich people are greedy, selfish, and that they deserve to have their money taken away, as if rich people were evil or something. Poor people should be helped, but the government shouldn't lift rich people, turn them upside down, and empty their pockets and purses. Redistribution penalizes those who have became financially successful, limits the freedom of the individuals (the individuals cannot choose whether to donate money to charity or not; the government automatically decides that and how much), and it also requires government coercion in order for it to work.
What problem? There is a huge difference between computer programming and computer science. Computer science is the study of computation, and computer scientists learn deeply about algorithms, computability, AI, data structures, compilers, operating systems, graphics, and much more. A BS or MS in CS isn't supposed to train you to be a systems administrator or a Java programmer, and that's the main problem. People enter CS majors thinking that CS is about "Java or Unix programming" and about learning how to fix computers, yet get disappointed when they realize that CS only tangentially discusses those topics. If you want to spend your time programming and fixing computers, get a MIS degree. If you want to know the science of computation, get a CS degree.
A computer programmer is to a computer scientist as a mechanic is to a mechanical engineer. Computer programmers and mechanics do know quite a bit about Java/Unix/Win32 programming and about various different auto parts, respectively, and we cannot live without these people. A computer scientist and a mechanical engineer might not know the latest programming language/methodology and might not know everything about every car, respectively, but a computer scietists knows the theory behind those programming languages and tools, and a mechanical engineer knows how to engineer a vehicle.
Yes, the BSD guys; McKusick, Joy, Karels, and a few other people that I have forgotten, have made some huge contributions to the Unix world (you can thank Bill Joy for vi and the C shell). You can also thank them, as well as Bill Jolitz, for being able to run freely available BSD derivatives on your PCs. However, the original Unix 32V sources (which BSD was derived from until Karels decided to purge BSD of all AT&T "taint" in the late 80s), the orignial kernels, the original programs, and many of the original basic ideas came from Bell Labs and from Kernighan, Ritchie, Thompson, Ossana, Pike, Johnson, and many more people that I have also forgotten.
The original Berkeley Software Distribution developers have made an enormous impact on the computer science and computing worlds in general, most notably its TCP/IP implementation. However, let's not forget where BSD actually comes from. BSD is a direct derivative from good-old Bell Labs Unix. Some BSD sources to this day still have some AT&T copyright notices (even though they're under the BSD license).
I agree. I will be a college freshman CS major in the fall, and I have been interested in computer science research for quite a while. I have read some of Kernighan's, Ritchie's, Pike's, Thompson's, and some of the other Unix guys' papers (some of them even came with my OS, FreeBSD; thanks Caldera for releasing the sources). I always heard that Bell Labs was a very interesting place, and I am intrigued by the work that these researchers have done and continue to do.
My goal is to either become a researcher working at a corporate lab, or to become a professor of computer science. It is too bad that systems software research seem to have stopped at a standstill. Plan 9's development has slowed down a lot and only have a handful of active developers left (most of them, even Rob Pike, are gone). I want to see some innovation in operating systems, compilers, and other similar areas of computer science. I wonder what is considered to be the "hot thing" in computer science research right now?
As for the Bell Labs Unix room, it is sad to see this piece of history ended. However, I guess the disbanding of the Unix group means that the Unix creators have fulfilled their origial purpose. Unix now lives on as BSD (which is technically Unix, based on AT&T origins), UnixWare, Solaris, and AIX, and has deeply influenced clones such as Linux. Unix development has fostered the creation of one of the most important programming languages (C), and its style has influenced software development forever. Unix is one of the first "open source" operating systems (thanks to Bell Labs's original lenient licensing and the Lion's book), and enabled other computer science students to know the application of operating system design. Unix is arguably the most important thing that has happened in the operating system, perhaps computing, world.
Unfortunately, the next major Pokemon release (Pokemon Diamond and Pearl) isn't due until early 2006 in Japan, and if they follow the same pattern in the US that they have done with earlier Pokemon releases, we won't see it in the US until at least the fall of 2006.
I personally like the Game Boy because of the Pokemon games (I still like Pokemon), and the Game Cube and Nintendo DS sounds nice, but the release of Sony's PSP and the upcoming release of the XBox 360 and Playstation 3 seem to be eating Nintendo's lunch right now, and those consoles aren't even out yet. Nintendo, on the other hand, isn't coming out with their new-generation console for at least another year.
I just hope Netcraft isn't confirming anything yet.
...alternate architectures aren't dead yet. It's nice to know that some alternatives to the x86 juggernaut are still live and kicking. I wonder if China will make MIPS-based personal computers or workstations? If these new processors are powerful enough, I might import a MIPS-based PC for some nice assembly hacking.
It would nice to see a day where the x86 juggernaut is effectively challenged.
The AMD64, while pretty nice and very cost-effective, is still a x86 derivative. I might look at the IBM/Lenovo PPC workstations; that might be something interesting for other people who are dissatisfied with the x86 monopoly (like myself).
And don't forget we still have Sun workstations. The cheapest Sun Blade 150 workstation has a 550MHz UltraSPARC IIi processor with 256MB RAM and an 80GB hard drive for about $1,400 (about the cost of a used single-processor Power Mac G5 these days). If you win the lottery, you can buy a Sun Blade 2500 workstation with up to two 1.6GHz UltraSPARC IIIi processor with 2GB RAM (expandable to 16GB RAM) for prices that go up into the $10,000 range and higher (depending on additional features that you may want).
Running away from the x86 juggernaut is a very expensive proposition these days, I have to say.
Because Apple sells more than just Power Mac G5s. The Pentium M would be perfect for Apple's consumer lines (Mac Mini, eMac, iMac, iBook) and Apple's PowerBook line, because of its low energy consumption and good performance (compared to the G4 that the Pentium M will replace). iBook and PowerBook users won't have to worry about their laptops frying their laps, for one. Plus, perhaps we might see some of that Centrino stuff in Apple's notebook lines, since they will probably use the Pentium M.
As for the Power Macs, Intel has a 64-bit Pentium 4 (i.e., one that understand AMD's 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set) and the 64-bit Xeon. The Xeon is a server-class chip, so it might be seen on the XServes that Apple sells and is comparable to AMD's Opteron.
Intel actually sells a wide variety of chips for various different types of computers. I'm still a little disappointed that Apple is dropping the PowerPC (I still hate the x86 ISA and architecture with a passion), but Intel seems to have a pretty nice and well-rounded product line that is more suitable for a company like Apple. It's a shame that IBM have failed to deliver on their promises with 3GHz G5s and a cool laptop version of the G5; I would kill for a 64-bit non-x86 laptop with Mac OS X right now. But oh well.
and would she rather see a fat woman with big hair and lots of tatoos?
Just because the writer of the article disapproves of Lara Croft and Wu doesn't mean that she wants to see them replaced with a 500-pound woman with big hair and lots of tattoos. That would be the complete opposite end of the spectrum. She just want them replaced with realistic looking women. You know, the ones that we see in everyday life. They don't have to have a watermelon-sized chest like Lara does. And there is more to beauty and attractiveness than cup sizes and skin. They can make an attractive character without having to make them look like Vegas show girls. They just need to look realistic and be a game character that kicks butt in the game. That's what the author seem to want.
For the last time, BSD IS NOT DYING! Hotmail switched to Windows 2000 after MS has bought Hotmail because Microsoft needed to "eat its own dog food." I don't know why Yahoo is using Linux, though. But anyways, BSD isn't dying. Development is going strong, and each new release keeps getting better. BSD is a very capable and complete operating system.
I can't believe that this post is already at +2, with Informative mods. This is just another Anonymous Coward trying to post another "BSD is Dying" troll, just in a different way by posting some developer's dissatisfaction with BSD. If this were the real Mike Smith, then he would have signed in. "The End of FreeBSD"? Hardly. FreeBSD is growing in nice numbers, and FreeBSD is getting better with every release.
IIRC, IE 5.5 is available for Windows 95; it's on my mom's Windows 95 computer (even though I have switched her to the Mozilla suite over a year ago, so she no longer uses IE). It's just that IE 6 isn't available for Windows 95 (it is, oddly enough, available for Windows NT 4.0), even though there isn't really a huge difference between IE 5.5 and IE 6.
First of all, your post and sig don't match, a real FreeBSD user (if any exist..) wouldn't use NT.
My main desktop computer is a FreeBSD machine, and I use it almost all the time. I also greatly prefer FreeBSD to NT in most areas. I just have an old 266MHz Pentium II laptop that runs Windows NT (I tried FreeBSD on it, but I ran into a few problems. Perhaps I might try again when I have more time).
The thing that really bugged me about your post was the topic. If MS is so dumb, and you've got it figured out, then why does Bill Gates have more money then you? You lose.
Well, Microsoft has never done this before, if I remember correctly. Normally whenever Microsoft wants to extinguish the competition, it would port its software to just about any platform imaginable. For example, during the original broswer wars between Netscape and Internet Explorer, Netscape ran on a variety of platforms (Mac, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x and NT, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris). Internet Explorer was ported to the Mac, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x/NT, and even Solaris. Microsoft wanted Netscape dead, so they ported it to every major OS except for the free *nix distributions. In the second browser wars (Firefox vs. Internet Explorer), Firefox is available all versions from Windows 95 and newer, Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, and other modern *nix distributions. Internet Explorer 7, on the other hand, will only be available for Windows XP, Server 2003, and Longhorn^WVista. Microsoft discontinued its Mac OS X port years ago, and it hasn't touched Solaris for many years. Microsoft is now trying to get people to upgrade to XP (something that they have had difficulty doing for the past few years), and I guess making IE 7 available to only XP users is just one of many ways Microsoft is trying to get people to upgrade. MS can always say, "You won't have a MS Certified(TM) Secure* Browser with Windows 2000, but you can have it all (firewall, popup blocking, anti-malware, secure* browser) with Windows XP." And if Microsoft markets successfully, people might be flocking to the shelves to buy XP just because of the browser and security features.
* Secure is relative to Microsoft's terms and advertisement. As much as I understand, IE 7 is still tightly integrated to the OS (hence the XP requirement; using XP-only features and APIs), which means that it will still be vulnerable to certain attacks, even though they will be somewhat mitigated with the firewall, ActiveX restrictions, and anti-malware software.
....they'll release versions of Internet Explorer 7 for Windows 2000 and Windows ME as well. Heck, they should release IE 7 for Windows 98 and Windows NT 4. There are still tens of millions of users (like myself) still using these older versions of Windows, who don't feel like "upgrading" to XP, and who won't have an updated Internet Explorer browser. However, the latest Firefox is readily available for every Windows version that supports Win32 except for Windows NT 3.x. If Microsoft truly cared about trying to steal Firefox's thunder, they should port Internet Explorer to a few older versions of Windows. I don't know too many people who would spend $100+ for an operating system just for a browser.
Well, it doesn't look like I'm giving up Firefox on my Windows NT laptop. Long live Firefox!
Why are you complaining about having to update Mac OS X every year, when you're still running Windows 2000 and haven't updated to Windows XP Pro or Windows Server 2003? Dude, when you buy a Mac or any other computer, you're not forced to update your OS whenever a newer version of it is released. Steve Jobs doesn't personally come to your house and points a gun at your head, demanding that you purchase Tiger. I know plenty of OS X users who are still at 10.1 and 10.2. Heck, there are still Mac OS 8/9 and NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP users out there. If the OS is stable, does everything that you want, and supports all of the applications that you need, why upgrade?
Yes, Mac OS X will only be supported on their MacTel machines. Mac OS X would probably use some sort of detection technique in order to determine whether or not the computer that OS X is running on is an "Apple Certified(TM) Machine" or not. However, there is nothing (except for possibly the DMCA) stopping some wizards from trying to trick Mac OS X into thinking that it is running on an "Apple Certified(TM) Machine," where inactuality it is really running on a $299 blue-light special Dell. They might not get any help from Apple, and not all of their hardware will work, but I'm pretty sure people will be running Mac OS X 10.5 on their Dell boxen within the next two years.
I, for one, would love to be able to run Mac OS X on a cheap x86 box. You'll have a very easy to use operating system, with very easy to use software, on a very cheap machine. Unfortuately, I don't think that Apple will ever sell a port of Mac OS X to plain vanilla x86 PCs, because it will definately cannibalize their MacTel sales.
I agree. Windows (in its NT, 2000, XP, and Server 2003 variants) is remarkably stable. It is pretty easy to use, supports just about every major application you can think of (from big commercial software like MS Office and Photoshop to open source applications like Firefox and OpenOffice), and is trouble free if you're not a clueless luser. I haven't had any viruses or malware on my Windows NT laptop (I really think I should update to Windows 2000); I have a firewall and use Firefox.
My only gripe with Windows is that it is missing all of the helpful little utilities and development tools that a Unix distribution ships with (little things like powerful editors, shell scripting, grep, gcc), but those things can easily be added using Cygwin, and there are Windows ports for vi (my favorite editor).
Somebody who loves computer science, like myself. I will be a freshman in the fall studying computer science. Computer science is a very interesting topic to study and to research, which is what I intend to do once I'm done with college.
And not all jobs that require a computer science degree will be outsourced to India and China. We still need computer science researchers and professors. There will always be somebody trying to advance the field. I just find computer science to be a very interesting field to study. I'm in it because I love the topic and I can't imagine doing anything else. I don't expect a $100,000 salary and a BMW and a house in the Bay Area.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, Slashdotters. What's with the frowns on everyone's faces. Why is everyone taking these dupes so negatively? Just think of these dupes as reruns. We would love to crack jokes about Windows viruses, talk about how Linux should be used for everything, talk about how "creative" stuffing viruses in MP3 players are, and....
Oh, scratch the sarcasm. These dupes really are annoying.
To further elaborate on your point, all Linux is is the kernel. The main problem is that everybody has created these incompatible toolkits (GTK, QT) and all of the applications built around those toolkits, yet all of the distributions built around the kernel and the OSes are called "Linux." There is no KDE Operating System or GNOME Operating System; that would make everything much easier in the eyes of a user. Instead, we have Mandrake, Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian, Yoper, Mepis, Puppy, Yellow Dog, Slackware, SuSE, and a myraid of other "distributions" that all call themselves "Linux," even though from the eyes of the user, they could be considered separate OSes. When a user attempts to set up a Linux machine, they must know the difference between the console and X11, the difference between KDE and GNOME apps, the difference between QT, GTK, and GTK+ apps, and some more structural information. They must learn what a kernel is and occasionally must learn how to recompile it to support some exotic piece of hardware. They must deal with the minor but annoying incompatibilities between certain applications. Many people cannot handle all of the technical knowledge they must learn and some of the unpolished portions of using a traditional Linux desktop, so they either go back to Big Daddy Bill Gates's Operating System or pay the cost to get Jobs's box. The problem with Linux on the desktop is lack of cohesion, but since Linus himself just made the kernel, and other people took the kernel into many different directions, we'll be stuck with this problem for end-users for a long time.
IMO, the best way for Linux to make a splash in the desktop is to did what Apple did to BSD: divorce it from the rest of the *nix world by creating their own graphical environment (Aqua) and their own toolkits (Carbon and Cocoa), and by not referring to OS X as a BSD. Imagine a new Linux distribution^W^W Linux-based operating system with a brand spanking new graphic system (no more of that ancient X cruft, something completely different) and a brand new toolkit to facilitate programming (none of that ugly Xlib stuff; start out with something similar to QT, GTK, Carbon/Cocoa or even Win32). Oh yeah, and it shouldn't be marketed as a Linux distribution. Instead, it should be marketed as a completely new operating system (although it has a Linux core) in order to prevent user confusion. It should be just as easy to use and just as attractive, if not, better than Mac OS X.
A great Linux-based operating system that is easy to use, has great applications, isn't encumbered with old cruft that confuses users, and is 100% free (as in both beer and speech) would make a huge splash in Window's marketshare. Granted, it will probably take about 5-10 years in order for this dream to come true, but I believe that it will be worth the wait for everybody.
Yeah, but there are certain occasions where Firefox is of no help (e.g., IE-only web pages, ActiveX stuff, etc.). An IE plugin with these security features would tremendously cut down on some of the major malware problems that many people are currently facing. All without having to switch browsers, too.
Don't get me wrong, I love Firefox as much as the next Slashdotter, but don't we all want a more secure Internet Explorer for our Windows-using friends as well?
Did you read the parent post? He said that he needed all of those specific applications for his job. He really does need those applications, and since he bought the Windows versions of those software and made a huge investment, he is going to stick to Windows for the near future, whether us *nix users like it or not.
Yes, the GIMP, Scribus, OpenOffice, and GNUcash are all nice programs. (No, I don't know an OSS replacement for Maya; Scribus is more or less equivalent to PageMaker). However, they are still missing all of the features that Photoshop, PageMaker, MS Office, and MS Money offers. When you need the latter applications for your professional job, and if they aren't available to alternative OSes without shelling out thousands of dollars or fiddling around with Wine and virtual environments, then you have no choice but to stick to Windows.
And Windows (as of 2000, XP, and Server 2003) isn't that bad of an operating system now of days. Sure, you're going to have to watch your back when it comes to security, but the NT-derived versions of Windows aren't too bad. As long as it runs all of the applications that he needs, then he shouldn't have a reason to switch to Mac OS X or *nix.
Because all mainstream personal computers will use the same x86 processor in the next two years, certain programmers who deal with assembly issues will be relieved. However, we still have Carbon/Cocoa, Win32, and GTK/QT/POSIX to deal with.
And we currently have cross-platform tools. It's called the GNU toolkit (autoconf, gcc, gdb, gmake, and a few other handy applications that are used on just about every platform availiable).
Compassion should come from the hearts of the people. Compassion shouldn't be enforced by the government through taxes. That's not compassion; that's coercion.
And why do you advocate taking money away from the rich to give it to other people? You must think that all rich people are greedy, selfish, and that they deserve to have their money taken away, as if rich people were evil or something. Poor people should be helped, but the government shouldn't lift rich people, turn them upside down, and empty their pockets and purses. Redistribution penalizes those who have became financially successful, limits the freedom of the individuals (the individuals cannot choose whether to donate money to charity or not; the government automatically decides that and how much), and it also requires government coercion in order for it to work.
Oh yeah, and I'm not rich either.
What problem? There is a huge difference between computer programming and computer science . Computer science is the study of computation, and computer scientists learn deeply about algorithms, computability, AI, data structures, compilers, operating systems, graphics, and much more. A BS or MS in CS isn't supposed to train you to be a systems administrator or a Java programmer, and that's the main problem. People enter CS majors thinking that CS is about "Java or Unix programming" and about learning how to fix computers, yet get disappointed when they realize that CS only tangentially discusses those topics. If you want to spend your time programming and fixing computers, get a MIS degree. If you want to know the science of computation, get a CS degree.
A computer programmer is to a computer scientist as a mechanic is to a mechanical engineer. Computer programmers and mechanics do know quite a bit about Java/Unix/Win32 programming and about various different auto parts, respectively, and we cannot live without these people. A computer scientist and a mechanical engineer might not know the latest programming language/methodology and might not know everything about every car, respectively, but a computer scietists knows the theory behind those programming languages and tools, and a mechanical engineer knows how to engineer a vehicle.
Yes, the BSD guys; McKusick, Joy, Karels, and a few other people that I have forgotten, have made some huge contributions to the Unix world (you can thank Bill Joy for vi and the C shell). You can also thank them, as well as Bill Jolitz, for being able to run freely available BSD derivatives on your PCs. However, the original Unix 32V sources (which BSD was derived from until Karels decided to purge BSD of all AT&T "taint" in the late 80s), the orignial kernels, the original programs, and many of the original basic ideas came from Bell Labs and from Kernighan, Ritchie, Thompson, Ossana, Pike, Johnson, and many more people that I have also forgotten.
The original Berkeley Software Distribution developers have made an enormous impact on the computer science and computing worlds in general, most notably its TCP/IP implementation. However, let's not forget where BSD actually comes from. BSD is a direct derivative from good-old Bell Labs Unix. Some BSD sources to this day still have some AT&T copyright notices (even though they're under the BSD license).
I agree. I will be a college freshman CS major in the fall, and I have been interested in computer science research for quite a while. I have read some of Kernighan's, Ritchie's, Pike's, Thompson's, and some of the other Unix guys' papers (some of them even came with my OS, FreeBSD; thanks Caldera for releasing the sources). I always heard that Bell Labs was a very interesting place, and I am intrigued by the work that these researchers have done and continue to do.
My goal is to either become a researcher working at a corporate lab, or to become a professor of computer science. It is too bad that systems software research seem to have stopped at a standstill. Plan 9's development has slowed down a lot and only have a handful of active developers left (most of them, even Rob Pike, are gone). I want to see some innovation in operating systems, compilers, and other similar areas of computer science. I wonder what is considered to be the "hot thing" in computer science research right now?
As for the Bell Labs Unix room, it is sad to see this piece of history ended. However, I guess the disbanding of the Unix group means that the Unix creators have fulfilled their origial purpose. Unix now lives on as BSD (which is technically Unix, based on AT&T origins), UnixWare, Solaris, and AIX, and has deeply influenced clones such as Linux. Unix development has fostered the creation of one of the most important programming languages (C), and its style has influenced software development forever. Unix is one of the first "open source" operating systems (thanks to Bell Labs's original lenient licensing and the Lion's book), and enabled other computer science students to know the application of operating system design. Unix is arguably the most important thing that has happened in the operating system, perhaps computing, world.
Long live Unix!
But what if the Lexus and the Kia are both made of the exact same parts, down to the engine?
Not much point in buying a Lexus then, unless you really want a "luxury" car that is overpriced for the parts that it contain.
Unfortunately, the next major Pokemon release (Pokemon Diamond and Pearl) isn't due until early 2006 in Japan, and if they follow the same pattern in the US that they have done with earlier Pokemon releases, we won't see it in the US until at least the fall of 2006.
I personally like the Game Boy because of the Pokemon games (I still like Pokemon), and the Game Cube and Nintendo DS sounds nice, but the release of Sony's PSP and the upcoming release of the XBox 360 and Playstation 3 seem to be eating Nintendo's lunch right now, and those consoles aren't even out yet. Nintendo, on the other hand, isn't coming out with their new-generation console for at least another year.
I just hope Netcraft isn't confirming anything yet.
...alternate architectures aren't dead yet. It's nice to know that some alternatives to the x86 juggernaut are still live and kicking. I wonder if China will make MIPS-based personal computers or workstations? If these new processors are powerful enough, I might import a MIPS-based PC for some nice assembly hacking.
It would nice to see a day where the x86 juggernaut is effectively challenged.
The AMD64, while pretty nice and very cost-effective, is still a x86 derivative. I might look at the IBM/Lenovo PPC workstations; that might be something interesting for other people who are dissatisfied with the x86 monopoly (like myself).
And don't forget we still have Sun workstations. The cheapest Sun Blade 150 workstation has a 550MHz UltraSPARC IIi processor with 256MB RAM and an 80GB hard drive for about $1,400 (about the cost of a used single-processor Power Mac G5 these days). If you win the lottery, you can buy a Sun Blade 2500 workstation with up to two 1.6GHz UltraSPARC IIIi processor with 2GB RAM (expandable to 16GB RAM) for prices that go up into the $10,000 range and higher (depending on additional features that you may want).
Running away from the x86 juggernaut is a very expensive proposition these days, I have to say.
Because Apple sells more than just Power Mac G5s. The Pentium M would be perfect for Apple's consumer lines (Mac Mini, eMac, iMac, iBook) and Apple's PowerBook line, because of its low energy consumption and good performance (compared to the G4 that the Pentium M will replace). iBook and PowerBook users won't have to worry about their laptops frying their laps, for one. Plus, perhaps we might see some of that Centrino stuff in Apple's notebook lines, since they will probably use the Pentium M.
As for the Power Macs, Intel has a 64-bit Pentium 4 (i.e., one that understand AMD's 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set) and the 64-bit Xeon. The Xeon is a server-class chip, so it might be seen on the XServes that Apple sells and is comparable to AMD's Opteron.
Intel actually sells a wide variety of chips for various different types of computers. I'm still a little disappointed that Apple is dropping the PowerPC (I still hate the x86 ISA and architecture with a passion), but Intel seems to have a pretty nice and well-rounded product line that is more suitable for a company like Apple. It's a shame that IBM have failed to deliver on their promises with 3GHz G5s and a cool laptop version of the G5; I would kill for a 64-bit non-x86 laptop with Mac OS X right now. But oh well.
Disclaimer: I'm a male
Just because the writer of the article disapproves of Lara Croft and Wu doesn't mean that she wants to see them replaced with a 500-pound woman with big hair and lots of tattoos. That would be the complete opposite end of the spectrum. She just want them replaced with realistic looking women. You know, the ones that we see in everyday life. They don't have to have a watermelon-sized chest like Lara does. And there is more to beauty and attractiveness than cup sizes and skin. They can make an attractive character without having to make them look like Vegas show girls. They just need to look realistic and be a game character that kicks butt in the game. That's what the author seem to want.
For the last time, BSD IS NOT DYING! Hotmail switched to Windows 2000 after MS has bought Hotmail because Microsoft needed to "eat its own dog food." I don't know why Yahoo is using Linux, though. But anyways, BSD isn't dying. Development is going strong, and each new release keeps getting better. BSD is a very capable and complete operating system.
I can't believe that this post is already at +2, with Informative mods. This is just another Anonymous Coward trying to post another "BSD is Dying" troll, just in a different way by posting some developer's dissatisfaction with BSD. If this were the real Mike Smith, then he would have signed in. "The End of FreeBSD"? Hardly. FreeBSD is growing in nice numbers, and FreeBSD is getting better with every release.
If it were called Windows NeXT, then it would get sued by Apple.
By the way, NEXTSTEP is a very good OS.
IIRC, IE 5.5 is available for Windows 95; it's on my mom's Windows 95 computer (even though I have switched her to the Mozilla suite over a year ago, so she no longer uses IE). It's just that IE 6 isn't available for Windows 95 (it is, oddly enough, available for Windows NT 4.0), even though there isn't really a huge difference between IE 5.5 and IE 6.
My main desktop computer is a FreeBSD machine, and I use it almost all the time. I also greatly prefer FreeBSD to NT in most areas. I just have an old 266MHz Pentium II laptop that runs Windows NT (I tried FreeBSD on it, but I ran into a few problems. Perhaps I might try again when I have more time).
Well, Microsoft has never done this before, if I remember correctly. Normally whenever Microsoft wants to extinguish the competition, it would port its software to just about any platform imaginable. For example, during the original broswer wars between Netscape and Internet Explorer, Netscape ran on a variety of platforms (Mac, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x and NT, Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris). Internet Explorer was ported to the Mac, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x/NT, and even Solaris. Microsoft wanted Netscape dead, so they ported it to every major OS except for the free *nix distributions. In the second browser wars (Firefox vs. Internet Explorer), Firefox is available all versions from Windows 95 and newer, Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, and other modern *nix distributions. Internet Explorer 7, on the other hand, will only be available for Windows XP, Server 2003, and Longhorn^WVista. Microsoft discontinued its Mac OS X port years ago, and it hasn't touched Solaris for many years. Microsoft is now trying to get people to upgrade to XP (something that they have had difficulty doing for the past few years), and I guess making IE 7 available to only XP users is just one of many ways Microsoft is trying to get people to upgrade. MS can always say, "You won't have a MS Certified(TM) Secure* Browser with Windows 2000, but you can have it all (firewall, popup blocking, anti-malware, secure* browser) with Windows XP." And if Microsoft markets successfully, people might be flocking to the shelves to buy XP just because of the browser and security features.
* Secure is relative to Microsoft's terms and advertisement. As much as I understand, IE 7 is still tightly integrated to the OS (hence the XP requirement; using XP-only features and APIs), which means that it will still be vulnerable to certain attacks, even though they will be somewhat mitigated with the firewall, ActiveX restrictions, and anti-malware software.
....they'll release versions of Internet Explorer 7 for Windows 2000 and Windows ME as well. Heck, they should release IE 7 for Windows 98 and Windows NT 4. There are still tens of millions of users (like myself) still using these older versions of Windows, who don't feel like "upgrading" to XP, and who won't have an updated Internet Explorer browser. However, the latest Firefox is readily available for every Windows version that supports Win32 except for Windows NT 3.x. If Microsoft truly cared about trying to steal Firefox's thunder, they should port Internet Explorer to a few older versions of Windows. I don't know too many people who would spend $100+ for an operating system just for a browser.
Well, it doesn't look like I'm giving up Firefox on my Windows NT laptop. Long live Firefox!
Why are you complaining about having to update Mac OS X every year, when you're still running Windows 2000 and haven't updated to Windows XP Pro or Windows Server 2003? Dude, when you buy a Mac or any other computer, you're not forced to update your OS whenever a newer version of it is released. Steve Jobs doesn't personally come to your house and points a gun at your head, demanding that you purchase Tiger. I know plenty of OS X users who are still at 10.1 and 10.2. Heck, there are still Mac OS 8/9 and NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP users out there. If the OS is stable, does everything that you want, and supports all of the applications that you need, why upgrade?
Yes, Mac OS X will only be supported on their MacTel machines. Mac OS X would probably use some sort of detection technique in order to determine whether or not the computer that OS X is running on is an "Apple Certified(TM) Machine" or not. However, there is nothing (except for possibly the DMCA) stopping some wizards from trying to trick Mac OS X into thinking that it is running on an "Apple Certified(TM) Machine," where inactuality it is really running on a $299 blue-light special Dell. They might not get any help from Apple, and not all of their hardware will work, but I'm pretty sure people will be running Mac OS X 10.5 on their Dell boxen within the next two years.
I, for one, would love to be able to run Mac OS X on a cheap x86 box. You'll have a very easy to use operating system, with very easy to use software, on a very cheap machine. Unfortuately, I don't think that Apple will ever sell a port of Mac OS X to plain vanilla x86 PCs, because it will definately cannibalize their MacTel sales.
I agree. Windows (in its NT, 2000, XP, and Server 2003 variants) is remarkably stable. It is pretty easy to use, supports just about every major application you can think of (from big commercial software like MS Office and Photoshop to open source applications like Firefox and OpenOffice), and is trouble free if you're not a clueless luser. I haven't had any viruses or malware on my Windows NT laptop (I really think I should update to Windows 2000); I have a firewall and use Firefox.
My only gripe with Windows is that it is missing all of the helpful little utilities and development tools that a Unix distribution ships with (little things like powerful editors, shell scripting, grep, gcc), but those things can easily be added using Cygwin, and there are Windows ports for vi (my favorite editor).
Somebody who loves computer science, like myself. I will be a freshman in the fall studying computer science. Computer science is a very interesting topic to study and to research, which is what I intend to do once I'm done with college.
And not all jobs that require a computer science degree will be outsourced to India and China. We still need computer science researchers and professors. There will always be somebody trying to advance the field. I just find computer science to be a very interesting field to study. I'm in it because I love the topic and I can't imagine doing anything else. I don't expect a $100,000 salary and a BMW and a house in the Bay Area.