www.usb.org is a BSD box (BSDI/OS, IIRC). Given the syntax of the URLs for drilling down to the contact records, it looks like the info might be in some sort of X.500-style directory, probably LDAP, or maybe NDS or Active Directory. Possibly with a default or blank Root DN password, or some other such dopey move.
If I didn't have to get some sleep, I'd check to see if I could get to it on the default LDAP port, seeing as telnet is open on the box.
The sysadmin there needs to be bonked on the head with a stick.
Look, I've been running Solaris, NT and Linux servers in production environments for 5 years now, and I know for a fact that Linux (and Solaris) are many orders of magnitude more reliable than NT, even (indeed, especially) under heavy loads and multiple concurrent applications.
But this "article"? This isn't a report. It's not research. It's some freelance mom-and-pop computer consultant who works out of his spare bedroom comparing two old machines he set up in a corner of the dining room. Gimme a break. This is no better than the amateur cheese Linux Journal publishes. In fact, I'll bet they'll be reprinting this in a month or two.
Now that Oracle, Sybase, Informix, IBM, BEA, iPlanet and others have supported products for all three of these OSes, doing apples-to-apples comparisons is easy. Enough with comparing PHP-on-Linux to ASP-on-NT and benchmarking NT on Apache. Let's see what an identical mix of Domino, DB2 and Websphere with IBM's recommended settings can do on identical dual-CPU, major-vendor rackmount servers and be done with it.
Folks, Apple's had LinuxPPC and mkLinux websites up for a few years now. Long before the return of Steve Jobs, they had a small team of engineers primarily focused on the mkLinux project using the Mach kernel.
Whether there's anyone still left at Apple working on this is another question, since after acquiring NeXT, Apple's OS strategy became a Mach + *BSD one. Note that by working with the Mach kernel all along, it can be assumed that work done on the key focus of the Mac Linux porting efforts--device drivers--would be largely applicable to mkLinux, OS X and Darwin.
Good grief, 200 posts to this item and only one AC who noted that this is old? Wow.
Gasse's been out for years. What took so long?
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 2
I'm a little skeptical that after all this time Apple's looking to go x86, even on a Crusoe. A Crusoe variant "emulating" a PPC is another story. MacOS X itself, as in the BSD/Darwin layers, is a reasonable enough proposal for it, but the sticking point would remain the legacy OS 9 emulation layer. Software-based emulation would certainly work, but it wouldn't be fast enough.
Of course, in the original switch from 680x0 processors to the PPC, Apple managed to pull off the transition with exactly that: software emulation and a period of hybrid ("fat") binaries until PPC-native apps became the norm. So who knows.
On the other hand, assuming IBM can pump out Crusoes quickly enough, a multi-Crusoe machine might be cheaper to build than a G4. And a Crusoe tweaked to do its microcode translation magic on the G3/G4 instruction set could make things mighty interesting.
I know we're all Linux geeks here, but doesn't anyone sometimes use a Windows machine? Last time I checked, all you needed to do to tables from MS Access to MySQL was the MySQL client and ODBC driver for Windows. You'd set up the MySQL server as a data source, and that was that. You'd click on an Acces table, select "export", and have it export directly to the MySQL server.
As for going from MS SQL Server to MySQL, once you put aside the fact that MySQL simply can't *do* some of the things MS SQL and other larger databases can do, moving the data itself isn't bad either, especially if you have SQL Server 7.0, which I'm told has a migration utility that can take data from any ODBC data source and export it to another.
I guess there are more complex and spartan ways to do this, but it should be noted that there are some things in this world that don't *require* perl and 8 or 9 libraries and packages.
One imagines the "GNU Edition" of CodeWarrior for Linux hasn't been selling very well. I hope they didn't think it was because you can't sell commercial software to Linux heads. Not true.
The GNU Tools edition of Code Warrior was missing all the things that made me want the Pro version for my shop: it had no SCM integration, no other team development features, it was only for C/C++, and it had no form painter. Among other things.
Without at least some SCM integration (say, with CVS, PVCS and MKS for a start), what development shop is going to bother? Sure, it's an easy transition from Windows or Mac Codewarrior, but what good is it without most of the things that make a professional IDE so good?
Right now, as far as C++ tools go on Linux, KDevelop's actually ahead in some key areas. It's got a (Qt) form painter, CVS integration, auto-completion and very good integration not only with the old core GNU tools but also with modern things like autoconf.
But there's still a market ripe and hungry for professional-level tools on Linux. professiona; developers are one group that's already adopting Linux on the desktop. They're often not locked in by a need to use MS Office heavily, and are plenty happy to run development tools on a stable, sturdy platform. IBM gets it. Borland gets it. And Metrowerks shouldn't be so afraid of Cygnus. Cygnus makes swell compilers and specialized tools, among other things, but they're not about to make general-purpose IDE vendors lose much sleep.
Oh no! The one company that understand how to make online services easy to use is getting bigger!
Has it occurred to anyone that this might be a Good Thing? AOL is very keenly interested in network appliances and non-PC devices in general. PDAs, phones, set-top boxen, wearables, etc., and they're interested in doing so on non-Microsoft platforms. That means there will be a formidable company backing devices beyond those that are "Windows-Powered".
This is one of the few possible moves that can prevent Windows Media Player and ActiveX from becoming requirements in the near future, and works to bolster alternative operating systems regardless of what AOL Time Warner themselves do. Their motivations will be revenue and traffic, not cross-sales of a line of software. This is important.
I'm referring to the disproportionate number of viruses set to do their thing on January 1. We're pretty well protected, but not perfect yet, and given that nobody on the PC side of things is going to be in the office on January 1, my point was that it seemed silly to not take such a simple precaution.
I've been at this company for less than 2 months. Everyone's on ratty old P133s. Locking down systems and moving to network-booting or, heck, thin-client, or even rolling out proper, all-points-of-entry virus protection isn't something you can roll out in a day or two.
Now go take your medication and settle down. I'm not a retard, you know.
There are good reasons to bring an e-commerce site offline for a few hours if you haven't tested the hell out of every last bit of functionality. You don't want order tables to be corrupted with records with incorrect timestamps, you don't want a bunch of old promotional prices to get reactivated, and so forth. You don't want to be vulnerable to similar problems in external systems your site uses as data sources. And when it's a commerce site, it's not just a cosmetic risk.. it's a business risk. Extremely cautious? Sure. But it's not an irrational move.
Similarly, if your webservers are running on an OS particularly vulnerable to viruses like, say, NT with Office installed (for generating RTF documents, etc.), you may just want to sit out a few particularly high-risk hours.
Where I work, I started only a couple of months ago and haven't had a chance to centralize and lock down virus protection. So prior to both Christmas and New Year's Eve, I made sure all Windows desktop systems and our lone NT server were all powered off, and they're staying that way until January 2. And all the fileservers got a full, level-0 backup a couple of hours before.
I'm not worried about the Mac server we have or the Linux boxes.. The former doesn't have MS Office on it and its System folder isn't shared, and the Linux boxes were installed and configured by me.
I want to enjoy this weekend, not spend it wondering if I'm going to spend Monday restoring systems from tape or cleaning a corrupted database.
Well, Solaris doesn't really understand kill -9
on
Server Uptimes Ranked
·
· Score: 3
Having admined a few Solaris boxen for 5 years, one thing I found irritating was the way an errant TCP/IP application--say, Netscape Enterprise Server--could get stuck in the middle of handling a request and end up unkillable. In order to release the port, the only remedy--I swear, ask Sun--is to reboot. Nothing you can do with kill, with proc tools, or by restarting netorking services, will kill a process in such a state, at least through Solaris 2.6.
The Palm VII does not browse the web or run a TCP/IP stack to do is wireless operation. All you can use are a built-in mail app and a good hundred or so (and growing fast) little "web clipping" apps that are basically preloaded web forms for querying URLs that return simple VII-optimized pages.
It uses a pager network. It's very slow. Service is expensive for the volume you get. You can't surf the web, though you can shop, check various kinds of email, whip up little apps of your own to hit your own servers, trade stocks, etc.
But it is good and I like my VII very much. Why? Because Palm's decision to use pager technology means it sips batteries. Two AAA cells last a month. And as limited as its net access is, it does what I need, and what most people need. Ever actually used telnet on a Palm? If you want to be cured of wanting it, just try it.
That said, the OmniSky has the VII beat pretty solidly in most geek regards: you get email notification, the ability to surf the web, telnet, do instant-messaging, etc. But the VII has been dropping in price, and if you like living hassle-free, the legendary Palm battery life can be nice. Fact is, you can get a VII for $450-$480 these days. A Palm V and the OmniSky package is an easy $600, and if you travel much, you're stuck carrying charging paraphenalia.
OS9 did run on the TRS-80 Color Computer, though FYI, it was third-party. And the developers (or whoever owns it now) weren't pleased by APple swiping the name.
I've seen this a couple of times before and could swear once it was from a link from a/. link.
Fashion, my foot. It's just the usual bunch of MIT people, one of whom happens to be a former model who understands PR and how to put together a press event, which when you think about it is itself a newsworthy development in the hardware arena. This ugly stuff and the company's ugly website got quite a bit of coverage back in October.
Quick, somebody hire an image consultant for Steve Mann.
Google seems to have an aversion to advertising and keyword sales. Why are they bothering with a patent if they don't seem to be interested in generating a cent of revenue through normal means? Is it because of terms of some government funding they've gotten?
We've all seen the stats on the number of hosts running PHP on top of Apache, since it's often mentioned in the server header on Apache.
What I'm more interested in is a thorough breakdown of how many sites are running ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, CGI, FastCGI, JSP/servlet engines and Java app servers.
This can be hairy-to-impossible to measure; all you can really go on are substrings in URIs, and there's no way to tell if something called "foo.pl" is a Perl CGI or a mod_perl module.
What makes this a point of interest is that what HTTP server you're running is an ever smaller piece of the story these days. After all, you can run PHP on IIS. You can run ASPs on Apache under Unix--even VBScript ones, if you buy Chilisoft's module. Servlets, JSPs and high-end application servers are cross-platform: you can most servlets, or something like StoryServer, WebLogic or Dynamo on IIS, Apache or a Netscape server on any of several operating systems without changing a line of your code.
Heck, all those ".cfm" URLs are pretty ambiguous these days. ColdFusion, though closely associated with NT environments, has run on Solaris for ages, the core engine is also now available as a platform-independent servlet, and starting with a beta of 4.5, the flagship product is now also on Linux.
The important NT "wins" are the sites running ASP on IIS, with the logic tier built as COM objects hosted on MTS. And that's how many larger IIS sites are built these days. And unless, like Barnes and Noble, you are getting direct development assistance from Microsoft, this combination should strike a sensible technologist as an alarming degree of lock-in to a single vendor.
Compare this to the freedom that using open technologies, whether PHP and mod_perl, or servlets and JSP, or even large-scale Java app servers gives you. Now that the major app server vendors have coalesced around the J2EE spec, you can switch from one big, scary app server to another, change operating systems and development tools, change databases, and change HTTP servers and still keep the bulk of your code intact. And most of what you're running will also run on a free, dinky little servlet engine or one of the forthccoming open-source EJB app servers chugging down the pike.
Doing things with ASP and don't like the latest direction MS Visual Studio is taking? Don't like the wholesale changes to the VB object model every 3 years? Want to try a different OS because you just can't get decent uptime and clustering working well enough under NT or Win2000? Too bad.
At this point, voice recognition and speech dicatation have gotten good enough for certain narrow applications. Neither by itself is going to be accurate enough for general use because both technologies need to be targeted to a specific context and vocabulary to work well.
On the other hand, if you combine speech recognition with a system of gestures and written jottings for doing corrections on the fly and for "nudging" the interpretive engine in one direction or another, you can probably increase the speed at which fully-corrected speech or text gets input by several orders of magnitude. Such a system gets rid of the need for stopping dictation/writing to go into an "edit" mode.
Current products show a strange myopia--designs that do handwriting or speech recognition as though users are unable to do both at once, partly an outgrowth of these technologies' origins as accessibility tools. That is, while it's terrific that someone with no mobility can use ViaVoice to fully operate any software other than perhaps a raster imaging package, this approach has made these technologies more tedious and linear than they need to be.
Indeed, such a thing may not even need handwriting recognition to get most of the benefit. I'd love to see what could be done to speech dictation performance with a gesture interface implemented on a pen tablet.
That's a UDP protocol that defaults to a low-numbered port, right? Any good instructions out there for properly opening a firewall and a NAT subnet to deal with it? Couldn't find any on Apple's site, and didn't feel like wasting so much time on a protocol so rarely used.
Can't help you with CD-R backup tools, but if you're okay with single-tape backups, KDat (part of the KDE suite) should do the trick. It's no Veritas NetBackup, but it's a polished and intuitively-designed little program.
Thinking more about CD-R backup, it seems it wouldn't be hard to adapt KDat to burn CD-R disks by frontending existing burning tools. I figure the resulting tool would work as follows:
User defines list of files/directories to back up, or picks a previously-saved list. Allow use of DnD to let users pick folders by dropping them on the app from any XDND-compliant file manager or dialog.
When the selections are complete, the user schedules the burn or starts it immediately.
Upon completion, do a verify and write the ID and description of the disk to the appropriate logs and history database, to allow easy browsing of backup history to select files for restore operations.
It's been fun knowing you, Real. It's too bad, really. It's going to suck not having a self-adjusting streaming protocol playable on non-Microsoft operating systems. Streaming MP3 over HTTP doesn't really do it for me, and I don't suspect we'll be seeing Windows Media playback for *nix, MacOS, PalmOS, the Playstation 2, etc. anytime soon.
After not working to protect their file formats, and letting Microsoft write clients to play back their encodings, this isn't going to make it.
Anyway, doesn't every playback scheme that directs a raw audio stream to a soundcard do a "file conversion" to some PCM format already? Isn't Streambox's only "sin" that they allow the converted file to be saved?
Note to Rob Glaser: maybe after you sell the burned-out husk of the company to AOL or Sun in a year or so, you can go back to work for Microsoft.
No frames support, poor "tactile" feel for when something is clickable, can't handle a simple redirect, often loads a page but won't display it, segfaults in a minute or so.
This has miles to go. What's interesting to me is that this is supposedly part of a port series that uses a common codebase. Based on that statement, I expected it to be a buggy cousin of the BeOS version in terms of where it stood in feature support. From the looks of this, it certainly doesn't look like they're managing to write cross-platform code.
Contrast this with everyone's favorite oft-delayed vaporware, Mozilla. A baseline Mozilla-based Communicator 5 now seems about 6 months away, and some 18 months past initial targets. But the codebase is by most measures 98% cross-platform, and it shows in the way the Win32, Unix and MacOS versions are progressing in lockstep.
Indeed, at the moment, Konqueror is in much better shape. Heck, the GNOME and Tk HTML widgets are in better shape.
I'm sure Opera will get something nice out the door. I'm still not sure what Opera's place in the world is, though. Consumers who use old, slow computers generally don't buy software. Companies that want to use old computers would probably be better off from a manageability standpoint if they turned them into X or ICA terminals (running Linux, DOS, *BSD, or whatever), and made full-featured browsers available on centralized servers.
As far as a lean, stripped-down browser goes for local execution, it looks like perfecty good Opera clones could be built out of Mozilla code. And since the MPL allows for BSD-like commercial extension, Mozilla's support for XML, DOM, plugins and so forth makes for a more realistic browser for the future. As DHTML continues to go mainstream and become a staple of web-based application development, Opera's austerity will come to look quaint.
The lad hasn't said anything new, but it's stuff that needs to be said again and agin until we get it right.
I'd like to take the complaint over font handling a step further. I agree that TrueType support should be part of the standard fontserver. Mandrake already does this, replacing xfs with xfstt, and unless there are license conflicts, other distros should follow suit.
But further hobbling things is the horror of installing and managing fonts under Linux, and under Unix in general.
More fonts, Postscript and TrueType alike, with their accompanying config file additions, should be packaged as relocatable noarch RPMs.
There should also be simple command-line tools and GNOME and KDE frontends for installing and inspecting not just these font RPMs, but also for one-step, jargonless, click-and-drool installation of arbitray Windows and (binhexed) Macintosh fonts and font bundles. Such tools should transparently perform all of the steps necessary to install such fonts under *nix, perhaps even creating the aforementioned font RPMs as an interim stage. Added bonus points if the same fonts were automatically made available to TeX, not because I think TeX is going to supplant word processors, but because it should be pushed hard as a Free Software answer to the Crystal Reports layout engine.
As long as you pick a mature baseline, say 4.08 or higher, or even better 4.51 or higher, making an app targeted to Netscape with HTML, its limited HTML extensions, Java and Javascript is going to need little if any work to run properly across all platforms.. Aged and anemic as the Netscape 4.x series is these days, it's admirably consistent across platforms. You have to push it to its limits and do some obscure things to run into a feature that doesn't work the same between Win32, MacOS and *nix.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is full of nifty functionality, but there are major points of divergence between the feature sets and behavior of the Win32, MacOS, and commercial-Unix versions of IE. It should be mentioned that the Solaris/HP-UX version of IE is more closely related to the Win32 version than the Mac version. For all intents and purposes, the Mac IE, while a nice browser, is a product unrelated to the WIndows browser of the same name.
LinuxOne is clearly a Situationist-inspired art project, like eToy. It's a hoax created by a Dutch and Japanese multimedia artists' collective. It has to be.
If you look at it that way, it's a good practical joke.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the resolution of those things? 640x480? I know plenty an X dialog box that can't fit in 800x600, never mind anything less.
Still nifty, though.
Finally, the Jaguar version is out. That means they can finish up the Amiga port.
www.usb.org is a BSD box (BSDI/OS, IIRC). Given the syntax of the URLs for drilling down to the contact records, it looks like the info might be in some sort of X.500-style directory, probably LDAP, or maybe NDS or Active Directory. Possibly with a default or blank Root DN password, or some other such dopey move.
If I didn't have to get some sleep, I'd check to see if I could get to it on the default LDAP port, seeing as telnet is open on the box.
The sysadmin there needs to be bonked on the head with a stick.
Look, I've been running Solaris, NT and Linux servers in production environments for 5 years now, and I know for a fact that Linux (and Solaris) are many orders of magnitude more reliable than NT, even (indeed, especially) under heavy loads and multiple concurrent applications.
But this "article"? This isn't a report. It's not research. It's some freelance mom-and-pop computer consultant who works out of his spare bedroom comparing two old machines he set up in a corner of the dining room. Gimme a break. This is no better than the amateur cheese Linux Journal publishes. In fact, I'll bet they'll be reprinting this in a month or two.
Now that Oracle, Sybase, Informix, IBM, BEA, iPlanet and others have supported products for all three of these OSes, doing apples-to-apples comparisons is easy. Enough with comparing PHP-on-Linux to ASP-on-NT and benchmarking NT on Apache. Let's see what an identical mix of Domino, DB2 and Websphere with IBM's recommended settings can do on identical dual-CPU, major-vendor rackmount servers and be done with it.
Folks, Apple's had LinuxPPC and mkLinux websites up for a few years now. Long before the return of Steve Jobs, they had a small team of engineers primarily focused on the mkLinux project using the Mach kernel.
Whether there's anyone still left at Apple working on this is another question, since after acquiring NeXT, Apple's OS strategy became a Mach + *BSD one. Note that by working with the Mach kernel all along, it can be assumed that work done on the key focus of the Mac Linux porting efforts--device drivers--would be largely applicable to mkLinux, OS X and Darwin.
Good grief, 200 posts to this item and only one AC who noted that this is old? Wow.
I'm a little skeptical that after all this time Apple's looking to go x86, even on a Crusoe. A Crusoe variant "emulating" a PPC is another story. MacOS X itself, as in the BSD/Darwin layers, is a reasonable enough proposal for it, but the sticking point would remain the legacy OS 9 emulation layer. Software-based emulation would certainly work, but it wouldn't be fast enough.
Of course, in the original switch from 680x0 processors to the PPC, Apple managed to pull off the transition with exactly that: software emulation and a period of hybrid ("fat") binaries until PPC-native apps became the norm. So who knows.
On the other hand, assuming IBM can pump out Crusoes quickly enough, a multi-Crusoe machine might be cheaper to build than a G4. And a Crusoe tweaked to do its microcode translation magic on the G3/G4 instruction set could make things mighty interesting.
I know we're all Linux geeks here, but doesn't anyone sometimes use a Windows machine? Last time I checked, all you needed to do to tables from MS Access to MySQL was the MySQL client and ODBC driver for Windows. You'd set up the MySQL server as a data source, and that was that. You'd click on an Acces table, select "export", and have it export directly to the MySQL server.
As for going from MS SQL Server to MySQL, once you put aside the fact that MySQL simply can't *do* some of the things MS SQL and other larger databases can do, moving the data itself isn't bad either, especially if you have SQL Server 7.0, which I'm told has a migration utility that can take data from any ODBC data source and export it to another.
I guess there are more complex and spartan ways to do this, but it should be noted that there are some things in this world that don't *require* perl and 8 or 9 libraries and packages.
One imagines the "GNU Edition" of CodeWarrior for Linux hasn't been selling very well. I hope they didn't think it was because you can't sell commercial software to Linux heads. Not true.
The GNU Tools edition of Code Warrior was missing all the things that made me want the Pro version for my shop: it had no SCM integration, no other team development features, it was only for C/C++, and it had no form painter. Among other things.
Without at least some SCM integration (say, with CVS, PVCS and MKS for a start), what development shop is going to bother? Sure, it's an easy transition from Windows or Mac Codewarrior, but what good is it without most of the things that make a professional IDE so good?
Right now, as far as C++ tools go on Linux, KDevelop's actually ahead in some key areas. It's got a (Qt) form painter, CVS integration, auto-completion and very good integration not only with the old core GNU tools but also with modern things like autoconf.
But there's still a market ripe and hungry for professional-level tools on Linux. professiona; developers are one group that's already adopting Linux on the desktop. They're often not locked in by a need to use MS Office heavily, and are plenty happy to run development tools on a stable, sturdy platform. IBM gets it. Borland gets it. And Metrowerks shouldn't be so afraid of Cygnus. Cygnus makes swell compilers and specialized tools, among other things, but they're not about to make general-purpose IDE vendors lose much sleep.
Oh no! The one company that understand how to make online services easy to use is getting bigger!
Has it occurred to anyone that this might be a Good Thing? AOL is very keenly interested in network appliances and non-PC devices in general. PDAs, phones, set-top boxen, wearables, etc., and they're interested in doing so on non-Microsoft platforms. That means there will be a formidable company backing devices beyond those that are "Windows-Powered".
This is one of the few possible moves that can prevent Windows Media Player and ActiveX from becoming requirements in the near future, and works to bolster alternative operating systems regardless of what AOL Time Warner themselves do. Their motivations will be revenue and traffic, not cross-sales of a line of software. This is important.
I'm referring to the disproportionate number of viruses set to do their thing on January 1. We're pretty well protected, but not perfect yet, and given that nobody on the PC side of things is going to be in the office on January 1, my point was that it seemed silly to not take such a simple precaution.
I've been at this company for less than 2 months. Everyone's on ratty old P133s. Locking down systems and moving to network-booting or, heck, thin-client, or even rolling out proper, all-points-of-entry virus protection isn't something you can roll out in a day or two.
Now go take your medication and settle down. I'm not a retard, you know.
There are good reasons to bring an e-commerce site offline for a few hours if you haven't tested the hell out of every last bit of functionality. You don't want order tables to be corrupted with records with incorrect timestamps, you don't want a bunch of old promotional prices to get reactivated, and so forth. You don't want to be vulnerable to similar problems in external systems your site uses as data sources. And when it's a commerce site, it's not just a cosmetic risk.. it's a business risk. Extremely cautious? Sure. But it's not an irrational move.
Similarly, if your webservers are running on an OS particularly vulnerable to viruses like, say, NT with Office installed (for generating RTF documents, etc.), you may just want to sit out a few particularly high-risk hours.
Where I work, I started only a couple of months ago and haven't had a chance to centralize and lock down virus protection. So prior to both Christmas and New Year's Eve, I made sure all Windows desktop systems and our lone NT server were all powered off, and they're staying that way until January 2. And all the fileservers got a full, level-0 backup a couple of hours before.
I'm not worried about the Mac server we have or the Linux boxes.. The former doesn't have MS Office on it and its System folder isn't shared, and the Linux boxes were installed and configured by me.
I want to enjoy this weekend, not spend it wondering if I'm going to spend Monday restoring systems from tape or cleaning a corrupted database.
Having admined a few Solaris boxen for 5 years, one thing I found irritating was the way an errant TCP/IP application--say, Netscape Enterprise Server--could get stuck in the middle of handling a request and end up unkillable. In order to release the port, the only remedy--I swear, ask Sun--is to reboot. Nothing you can do with kill, with proc tools, or by restarting netorking services, will kill a process in such a state, at least through Solaris 2.6.
The Palm VII does not browse the web or run a TCP/IP stack to do is wireless operation. All you can use are a built-in mail app and a good hundred or so (and growing fast) little "web clipping" apps that are basically preloaded web forms for querying URLs that return simple VII-optimized pages.
It uses a pager network. It's very slow. Service is expensive for the volume you get. You can't surf the web, though you can shop, check various kinds of email, whip up little apps of your own to hit your own servers, trade stocks, etc.
But it is good and I like my VII very much. Why? Because Palm's decision to use pager technology means it sips batteries. Two AAA cells last a month. And as limited as its net access is, it does what I need, and what most people need. Ever actually used telnet on a Palm? If you want to be cured of wanting it, just try it.
That said, the OmniSky has the VII beat pretty solidly in most geek regards: you get email notification, the ability to surf the web, telnet, do instant-messaging, etc. But the VII has been dropping in price, and if you like living hassle-free, the legendary Palm battery life can be nice. Fact is, you can get a VII for $450-$480 these days. A Palm V and the OmniSky package is an easy $600, and if you travel much, you're stuck carrying charging paraphenalia.
Clear enough?
OS9 did run on the TRS-80 Color Computer, though FYI, it was third-party. And the developers (or whoever owns it now) weren't pleased by APple swiping the name.
a relawsuit.html.
See http://ww w.macobserver.com/news/99/september/990903/microw
I've seen this a couple of times before and could swear once it was from a link from a /. link.
Fashion, my foot. It's just the usual bunch of MIT people, one of whom happens to be a former model who understands PR and how to put together a press event, which when you think about it is itself a newsworthy development in the hardware arena. This ugly stuff and the company's ugly website got quite a bit of coverage back in October.
Quick, somebody hire an image consultant for Steve Mann.
Google seems to have an aversion to advertising and keyword sales. Why are they bothering with a patent if they don't seem to be interested in generating a cent of revenue through normal means? Is it because of terms of some government funding they've gotten?
We've all seen the stats on the number of hosts running PHP on top of Apache, since it's often mentioned in the server header on Apache.
What I'm more interested in is a thorough breakdown of how many sites are running ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, CGI, FastCGI, JSP/servlet engines and Java app servers.
This can be hairy-to-impossible to measure; all you can really go on are substrings in URIs, and there's no way to tell if something called "foo.pl" is a Perl CGI or a mod_perl module.
What makes this a point of interest is that what HTTP server you're running is an ever smaller piece of the story these days. After all, you can run PHP on IIS. You can run ASPs on Apache under Unix--even VBScript ones, if you buy Chilisoft's module. Servlets, JSPs and high-end application servers are cross-platform: you can most servlets, or something like StoryServer, WebLogic or Dynamo on IIS, Apache or a Netscape server on any of several operating systems without changing a line of your code.
Heck, all those ".cfm" URLs are pretty ambiguous these days. ColdFusion, though closely associated with NT environments, has run on Solaris for ages, the core engine is also now available as a platform-independent servlet, and starting with a beta of 4.5, the flagship product is now also on Linux.
The important NT "wins" are the sites running ASP on IIS, with the logic tier built as COM objects hosted on MTS. And that's how many larger IIS sites are built these days. And unless, like Barnes and Noble, you are getting direct development assistance from Microsoft, this combination should strike a sensible technologist as an alarming degree of lock-in to a single vendor.
Compare this to the freedom that using open technologies, whether PHP and mod_perl, or servlets and JSP, or even large-scale Java app servers gives you. Now that the major app server vendors have coalesced around the J2EE spec, you can switch from one big, scary app server to another, change operating systems and development tools, change databases, and change HTTP servers and still keep the bulk of your code intact. And most of what you're running will also run on a free, dinky little servlet engine or one of the forthccoming open-source EJB app servers chugging down the pike.
Doing things with ASP and don't like the latest direction MS Visual Studio is taking? Don't like the wholesale changes to the VB object model every 3 years? Want to try a different OS because you just can't get decent uptime and clustering working well enough under NT or Win2000? Too bad.
At this point, voice recognition and speech dicatation have gotten good enough for certain narrow applications. Neither by itself is going to be accurate enough for general use because both technologies need to be targeted to a specific context and vocabulary to work well.
On the other hand, if you combine speech recognition with a system of gestures and written jottings for doing corrections on the fly and for "nudging" the interpretive engine in one direction or another, you can probably increase the speed at which fully-corrected speech or text gets input by several orders of magnitude. Such a system gets rid of the need for stopping dictation/writing to go into an "edit" mode.
Current products show a strange myopia--designs that do handwriting or speech recognition as though users are unable to do both at once, partly an outgrowth of these technologies' origins as accessibility tools. That is, while it's terrific that someone with no mobility can use ViaVoice to fully operate any software other than perhaps a raster imaging package, this approach has made these technologies more tedious and linear than they need to be.
Indeed, such a thing may not even need handwriting recognition to get most of the benefit. I'd love to see what could be done to speech dictation performance with a gesture interface implemented on a pen tablet.
Oh, okay.
That's a UDP protocol that defaults to a low-numbered port, right? Any good instructions out there for properly opening a firewall and a NAT subnet to deal with it? Couldn't find any on Apple's site, and didn't feel like wasting so much time on a protocol so rarely used.
Thinking more about CD-R backup, it seems it wouldn't be hard to adapt KDat to burn CD-R disks by frontending existing burning tools. I figure the resulting tool would work as follows:
It's been fun knowing you, Real. It's too bad, really. It's going to suck not having a self-adjusting streaming protocol playable on non-Microsoft operating systems. Streaming MP3 over HTTP doesn't really do it for me, and I don't suspect we'll be seeing Windows Media playback for *nix, MacOS, PalmOS, the Playstation 2, etc. anytime soon.
After not working to protect their file formats, and letting Microsoft write clients to play back their encodings, this isn't going to make it.
Anyway, doesn't every playback scheme that directs a raw audio stream to a soundcard do a "file conversion" to some PCM format already? Isn't Streambox's only "sin" that they allow the converted file to be saved?
Note to Rob Glaser: maybe after you sell the burned-out husk of the company to AOL or Sun in a year or so, you can go back to work for Microsoft.
No frames support, poor "tactile" feel for when something is clickable, can't handle a simple redirect, often loads a page but won't display it, segfaults in a minute or so.
This has miles to go. What's interesting to me is that this is supposedly part of a port series that uses a common codebase. Based on that statement, I expected it to be a buggy cousin of the BeOS version in terms of where it stood in feature support. From the looks of this, it certainly doesn't look like they're managing to write cross-platform code.
Contrast this with everyone's favorite oft-delayed vaporware, Mozilla. A baseline Mozilla-based Communicator 5 now seems about 6 months away, and some 18 months past initial targets. But the codebase is by most measures 98% cross-platform, and it shows in the way the Win32, Unix and MacOS versions are progressing in lockstep.
Indeed, at the moment, Konqueror is in much better shape. Heck, the GNOME and Tk HTML widgets are in better shape.
I'm sure Opera will get something nice out the door. I'm still not sure what Opera's place in the world is, though. Consumers who use old, slow computers generally don't buy software. Companies that want to use old computers would probably be better off from a manageability standpoint if they turned them into X or ICA terminals (running Linux, DOS, *BSD, or whatever), and made full-featured browsers available on centralized servers.
As far as a lean, stripped-down browser goes for local execution, it looks like perfecty good Opera clones could be built out of Mozilla code. And since the MPL allows for BSD-like commercial extension, Mozilla's support for XML, DOM, plugins and so forth makes for a more realistic browser for the future. As DHTML continues to go mainstream and become a staple of web-based application development, Opera's austerity will come to look quaint.
The lad hasn't said anything new, but it's stuff that needs to be said again and agin until we get it right.
I'd like to take the complaint over font handling a step further. I agree that TrueType support should be part of the standard fontserver. Mandrake already does this, replacing xfs with xfstt, and unless there are license conflicts, other distros should follow suit.
But further hobbling things is the horror of installing and managing fonts under Linux, and under Unix in general.
More fonts, Postscript and TrueType alike, with their accompanying config file additions, should be packaged as relocatable noarch RPMs.
There should also be simple command-line tools and GNOME and KDE frontends for installing and inspecting not just these font RPMs, but also for one-step, jargonless, click-and-drool installation of arbitray Windows and (binhexed) Macintosh fonts and font bundles. Such tools should transparently perform all of the steps necessary to install such fonts under *nix, perhaps even creating the aforementioned font RPMs as an interim stage. Added bonus points if the same fonts were automatically made available to TeX, not because I think TeX is going to supplant word processors, but because it should be pushed hard as a Free Software answer to the Crystal Reports layout engine.
As long as you pick a mature baseline, say 4.08 or higher, or even better 4.51 or higher, making an app targeted to Netscape with HTML, its limited HTML extensions, Java and Javascript is going to need little if any work to run properly across all platforms.. Aged and anemic as the Netscape 4.x series is these days, it's admirably consistent across platforms. You have to push it to its limits and do some obscure things to run into a feature that doesn't work the same between Win32, MacOS and *nix.
Internet Explorer, on the other hand, is full of nifty functionality, but there are major points of divergence between the feature sets and behavior of the Win32, MacOS, and commercial-Unix versions of IE. It should be mentioned that the Solaris/HP-UX version of IE is more closely related to the Win32 version than the Mac version. For all intents and purposes, the Mac IE, while a nice browser, is a product unrelated to the WIndows browser of the same name.
LinuxOne is clearly a Situationist-inspired art project, like eToy. It's a hoax created by a Dutch and Japanese multimedia artists' collective. It has to be.
If you look at it that way, it's a good practical joke.