Was it because there were meddling micromanagers like you (who should have been doing engineering rather than meddling around in what brand of paperclips, photocopiers, printers, or PCs the company was using) that the company was eventually sold?
People who jerk off to porn aren't usually worried about their sperm count.
To the contrary, a low-enough sperm count would mean they won't have to keep a condom around for the (theoretical) possibility of sex with a real woman.
Re:NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release
on
NetBSD 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
My July 1993 InfoMagic 'UNIX CD-ROM' (predecessor of the Linux Developers Resource CD set they started distributing shortly later) has, for the time, the three main 'free UNIXes' for Intel on it:
NetBSD 0.8 Linux SLS & etc. (kernel 0.99.10) 386BSD 0.1
It's an extremely early Free UNIX CD compilation (possibly the first commercial CD with Linux on it)
So, they were at 0.8 in 1993. I started using NetBSD at Version 1.3 back in the Linux 1.2 kernel era. The versioning moves much slower than with many other Freenixes. Slow, steady, reliable development. Built to last.
I have been running NetBSD-current on a four-way Pentium Pro server for a number of months now. When I run large builds from the pkgsrc collection (i.e. building Mozilla or OpenOffice,) the top command reports nice even loading on all four processors during the build.
This should not be taken as a good SMP benchmark, nor is that particular machine (an IBM PC Server 704) bleeding edge, nor is it running heavy SMP threaded tasks. Just my personal observations on the modest 4-way hardware I have.
Now I can't wait to put 2.0 on it. Will be nice to be back on a formal-release build (I am not always the adventurous sort)
Re:What are NetBSD's strengths?
on
NetBSD 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD and thus ceased to be NetBSD. That is different from certain other OSes, which are 'ported to other platforms' by creating forks that seldom merge back together ever again, yet are claimed to still be the same OS.
Who cares how many OSes have the RPM command implemented to them. What the grandparent is talking about is a CVS controlled tree of source patches that make a consolidated dependency-keyed build system. That builds with the same scripts on all architectures of NetBSD seamlessly.
What RPM has is a framework that all sorts of people roll out on all different sorts of OS architectures, all alike only in the base package structure.
Your claim is like arguing that the TAR command is a cross-platform build system because a lot of different systems can build source code that is stored in tarballs.
Actually, NeXT is the company name, since they took over Apple when the boys at Apple proved entirely incapable of producing a robust modern Operating System.
But the Apple name had better marketing value, and a whole pre-fab army of zealots up and running, so they stuck with that name.
A good example of this is Kevin Karpenske, who donated the firefox.com domain to the mozilla foundation.
Okay. So Apple Computer Company should devote all their resources to Open Source development and release all the design details for their hardware products, and reorganize as a non-profit.
Setup.exe killed Norton. Or, to be more clear, Norton Utilities died at the point when it became important to run a setup.exe program to 'install' it on a computer. Norton was a DOS tool for digging around inside and fixing files and drives.
Peter Norton is just a bitmap on a box and has been for over a decade.
'8 bit' in the way you are interpreting it is 256 colors. 2^^8 and all that, ya know. I remember back when I could finally afford my first 8-bit color graphics card. Mmmm... (heh)
They use Linux in the back room to render and do 'heavy muscle' jobs. They certainly don't have their designers sitting at Linux desktops to do the editing and what-not.
You're not describing shareware. Shareware is distributed on the basis of trust. You're describing crippleware, which is a newer 'innovation' on the Shareware concept.
I've found that the older HP Scanjet scanners are much, MUCH better at scanning than any of the affordable new scanners. The HP scanners have a greater depth of field. I can put 'real' objects like jewelry and small parts on the glass with the HP scanner and take very crisp 'photographs' of them.
That, and I saw a whole table of old Scanjets sell at auction recently for under $20 after none were purchased as 'select' items at $5 each. They go cheap, and they're SCSI, not some kludge interface.
Just a discussion point that may be well covered on the linked site, but worth adding to the discussion here: does the Duct Tape mod make a player more vulnerable, as s/he is obviously more visible to the monsters while waving around a flashlight?
The situation is more complex than that. Part of what made the IBM PC division the 'worst thing' for OS/2 was just the fact that the PC Division and OS/2 were both under the same corporate umbrulla. For Compaq to, say, ship a PC with OS/2 installed meant paying a substancial per-machine license fee to IBM, one of their direct competitors. This is completely counter-intuitive to the way to compete at that point in time in the PC business. It was much more attractive to pay a per-machine license to Microsoft, an entity that was NOT a direct competitor.
Few people acknowledge this reality. OS/2 being closely tied to a PC Vendor was bad for it's spread.
What they do not have is an option for a given product whether you want an Intel or AMD processor.
Well, there are tons of Case/Power-Supply vendors to choose from, if you want THAT degree of choice range. Hint: that's not a 'different version of same model' choice. There's no way in hell that a motherboard can be 'architectured' to take both Intel and AMD processors.
Slashdot Mirror
Me, I would go to the polo match on a good old-fashioned bicycle.
I'd be wearing a backpack with the large batteries, coils and capacitors needed to produce a powerful EMP.
During the match, the EMP would be 'released' at a key point in order to watch the polo-droids all fall on their faces simultaneously.
Fun!
Was it because there were meddling micromanagers like you (who should have been doing engineering rather than meddling around in what brand of paperclips, photocopiers, printers, or PCs the company was using) that the company was eventually sold?
Are you implying that there's a strong wind from the east that blows 'across the pond' ???
dutch \"dech\ adv, often cap : with each person paying his or her own way
People who jerk off to porn aren't usually worried about their sperm count.
To the contrary, a low-enough sperm count would mean they won't have to keep a condom around for the (theoretical) possibility of sex with a real woman.
My July 1993 InfoMagic 'UNIX CD-ROM' (predecessor of the Linux Developers Resource CD set they started distributing shortly later) has, for the time, the three main 'free UNIXes' for Intel on it:
NetBSD 0.8
Linux SLS & etc. (kernel 0.99.10)
386BSD 0.1
It's an extremely early Free UNIX CD compilation (possibly the first commercial CD with Linux on it)
So, they were at 0.8 in 1993. I started using NetBSD at Version 1.3 back in the Linux 1.2 kernel era. The versioning moves much slower than with many other Freenixes. Slow, steady, reliable development. Built to last.
I have been running NetBSD-current on a four-way Pentium Pro server for a number of months now. When I run large builds from the pkgsrc collection (i.e. building Mozilla or OpenOffice,) the top command reports nice even loading on all four processors during the build.
This should not be taken as a good SMP benchmark, nor is that particular machine (an IBM PC Server 704) bleeding edge, nor is it running heavy SMP threaded tasks. Just my personal observations on the modest 4-way hardware I have.
Now I can't wait to put 2.0 on it. Will be nice to be back on a formal-release build (I am not always the adventurous sort)
OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD and thus ceased to be NetBSD. That is different from certain other OSes, which are 'ported to other platforms' by creating forks that seldom merge back together ever again, yet are claimed to still be the same OS.
Who cares how many OSes have the RPM command implemented to them. What the grandparent is talking about is a CVS controlled tree of source patches that make a consolidated dependency-keyed build system. That builds with the same scripts on all architectures of NetBSD seamlessly.
What RPM has is a framework that all sorts of people roll out on all different sorts of OS architectures, all alike only in the base package structure.
Your claim is like arguing that the TAR command is a cross-platform build system because a lot of different systems can build source code that is stored in tarballs.
Rendering is what is done to process dead animals which are not suitable for food.
render \"ren-der\ vb 1 : to extract (as lard) by heating
Often soap is made from rendered animals.
Is this a manifestation of the obnoxious advertising clause that gnu-ians always used to rant about with the BSD license?
Is a big hunk of text listing a bunch of names supposed to impress people into using Mozilla?
My name? I've had a NYT login so long now that I don't remember what name I gave back then in the first place.
Actually, NeXT is the company name, since they took over Apple when the boys at Apple proved entirely incapable of producing a robust modern Operating System.
But the Apple name had better marketing value, and a whole pre-fab army of zealots up and running, so they stuck with that name.
A good example of this is Kevin Karpenske, who donated the firefox.com domain to the mozilla foundation.
Okay. So Apple Computer Company should devote all their resources to Open Source development and release all the design details for their hardware products, and reorganize as a non-profit.
Then what you say will start to make sense.
....that I have all 640K of RAM installed in my IBM PC Convertible, then, if things are shutting down there...
Symantec has definately killed Norton.
Setup.exe killed Norton. Or, to be more clear, Norton Utilities died at the point when it became important to run a setup.exe program to 'install' it on a computer. Norton was a DOS tool for digging around inside and fixing files and drives.
Peter Norton is just a bitmap on a box and has been for over a decade.
Simple answer:
He saw an opportunity to astroturf for Apple.
But gimp is far beyond 64 colors.
'8 bit' in the way you are interpreting it is 256 colors. 2^^8 and all that, ya know. I remember back when I could finally afford my first 8-bit color graphics card. Mmmm... (heh)
They use Linux in the back room to render and do 'heavy muscle' jobs. They certainly don't have their designers sitting at Linux desktops to do the editing and what-not.
You're not describing shareware. Shareware is distributed on the basis of trust. You're describing crippleware , which is a newer 'innovation' on the Shareware concept.
I've found that the older HP Scanjet scanners are much, MUCH better at scanning than any of the affordable new scanners. The HP scanners have a greater depth of field. I can put 'real' objects like jewelry and small parts on the glass with the HP scanner and take very crisp 'photographs' of them.
That, and I saw a whole table of old Scanjets sell at auction recently for under $20 after none were purchased as 'select' items at $5 each. They go cheap, and they're SCSI, not some kludge interface.
Just a discussion point that may be well covered on the linked site, but worth adding to the discussion here: does the Duct Tape mod make a player more vulnerable, as s/he is obviously more visible to the monsters while waving around a flashlight?
Just about anything from Monty Python was done earlier, and better, on the Goon Show with Sellers, Spike Mulligan, etc.
The catch is: the Goon Show was a radio program.
The situation is more complex than that. Part of what made the IBM PC division the 'worst thing' for OS/2 was just the fact that the PC Division and OS/2 were both under the same corporate umbrulla. For Compaq to, say, ship a PC with OS/2 installed meant paying a substancial per-machine license fee to IBM, one of their direct competitors. This is completely counter-intuitive to the way to compete at that point in time in the PC business. It was much more attractive to pay a per-machine license to Microsoft, an entity that was NOT a direct competitor.
Few people acknowledge this reality. OS/2 being closely tied to a PC Vendor was bad for it's spread.
What they do not have is an option for a given product whether you want an Intel or AMD processor.
Well, there are tons of Case/Power-Supply vendors to choose from, if you want THAT degree of choice range. Hint: that's not a 'different version of same model' choice. There's no way in hell that a motherboard can be 'architectured' to take both Intel and AMD processors.