Actually, it's got both; BSD kernel (providing filesystem support, networking...) running on top of Mach kernel (providing threads, process control...)
Apple lost that case because it HAD licensed the Mac UI (or elements thereof) to MS for Windows 1.0 and subsequent versions, because otherwise MS threatened to cancel Word for Mac (which had 50% of the mac wp market).
This skin issue is different; nobody's licensed the look & feel from apple.
they did mention *ionizing* the hull plating, which might help disperse particle-beam weapons; basically, the impression I got was that it's metal armor that can be ionized for more protection from energy weapons; when it went off-line, it was the ionization going offline (de-ionizing).
I'd much rather have soldiers armed with MP5s in airports, than have strong encryption made illegal.
As long as those soldiers are trained well, and are soldiers rather than typical american donut-munching cops, I'd feel safe; it'd be no different from any European airport.
What concerns me the most is the potential attack on safe (i.e. no back doors) encryption.
Well... would you settle for Alice, Q3, Aliens vs. Predator (yes, old game on Windows, but the new Mac version is very nicely updated and still fun), Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Oni, and a bunch of others? Unreal Tournament is being carbonized; Mark Adams is working on it, and is supposedly a couple weeks away from a public beta.
Hmm... I have heard of people getting retail PC GeForce2 and 3 cards working fine in a G4. The only difference I'm aware of is that the G4's AGP slot has an extra extension to it for providing power and USB signal to the Apple Desktop Connector bus. However, that connector doesn't need to be filled; while it means you can't use an Apple-OEM'ed card in a PC, you can still use a PC card in a Mac; it just doesn't use the extra ADC slot, which doesn't matter since the PC card won't have an ADC connector anyways.
Several companies make processor upgrades for current (and past) macs. Sonnet and Powerlogix are two of them. There are even processor upgrades for powerbooks; I upgraded my 233MHz powerbook G3 to a 466MHz CPU with a bigger cache, and it actually runs cooler.
RAM upgrades are obviously trivial; PC66, PC100, or PC133 depending on the model.
video cards in G4s are just AGP cards; there are currently NVidia and ATI drivers.
the only things that would be difficult to upgrade would be the motherboard (it's hard to get a new mobo by itself, and not cheap) and the power supply (not hard to replace it, but I don't know if there are any available that would fit that are UPGRADES (i.e. more powerful than the stock unit)).
Nobody calls it the apple tax because Apple isn't charging licensing fees to another company that they pass off to you. Apple's per-unit cost for bundling Mac OS with a computer is zero, because they develop the OS and the hardware.
It'd be like trying to get a Palm without PalmOS.
Or it'd be like complaining that a Microsoft-brand PC came with Windows, if Microsoft sold its own brand of PCs.
You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.
On the other hand, Apple also doesn't make you type in annoying 25-character license keys to use the OS that came with your computer.
Because unlike Dell or Gateway, Apple has to recoup all their R&D costs, and they don't sell as many machines, so that cost is divided among fewer machines.
Well, there are some quality apps such as Omniweb and the Stone suite, but this won't help bring big-name *commercial* apps to Linux (apps such as Photoshop, MS Office, etc) as those are mostly written to the Carbon APIs, rather than the Cocoa APIs that OpenStep is related to.
>>yes, I realize you can use a sony mp3 player to play music you paid for...
but not if that music is protected on CD with this sort of copy protection! This has nothing to do with playing mp3s off the net, and everything to do with being unable to rip to mp3 in the first place.
Another possibility - those who made the decision may not have been TOLD by Ashcroft or Bush to make that decision, but may have been otherwise pressured (indirectly) by them to make that decision. Merely saying that "Bush is buddies with Bill" was probably enough to change the DoJ's strategy, without constituting a direct order.
You make some good points. Another way to look at this (esp. the whole Napster thing, or your speeding example) is that when a LARGE percentage of a population (need not be an actual majority) are breaking the same law, the law needs to be examined closely.
Perhaps there's something quite wrong with society; if 30% of the population were murderers, this would definitely be the case. But perhaps it's an indication that the law should be changed. Should SO many people get speeding tickets all the time, especially when they're only a fraction ("selective enforcement" police units really scare me) of the total number of people speeding? Should everyone who used Napster be punished? Any society that has as large a percentage of its population in prison as ours does definitely has a problem (note: most of these people are in for drug-related offenses, which I think probably shouldn't be illegal).
A friend of mine often rants against unenforced laws; he thinks the speeding laws should be STRICTLY enforced, so that people would get pissed and demand that the law be changed. Perhaps this is true; it's a variation on the idea that a society that criminalizes (whether or not it punishes) a large % of the population has a major problem.
Sometimes, the only way to wake the public up to the fact that some laws are immoral or unjust is to violate those laws.
What if the State prohibited protest, and in fact prohibited trying to change the law in any way. Then even "democratic action" to change that law would be illegal. Thus, violating the law could be considered a moral imperative.
To put it another way, laws exist to try to keep society ordery. But when the laws are unjust, they must be changed, and it is possible that those laws will need to be broken to reform them. Laws do not equate to morals. I think there are many things that are illegal but not immoral, as well as many things that ARE immoral but not illegal.
Not everybody has the same morals, though on a Federal level this country has unified laws. However, some of those laws have been bought and paid for by large corporations, in a very undemocratic manner. When corporate lobbyists and greedy politicians ignore their constituents (which is easy since most Americans are now complacent tv-absorbing vegetables anyways, thanks to corporate america and the dumbing-down of media as well as education) then democracy is broken.
Turn it around - what if the law REQUIRED that all Blacks and Jews be rounded up and turned into the police for extermination. You'd be violating the law by providing safe harbor to those people whose lives were at stake. Would such a violation of the law be wrong? When slaves in America were just property with no rights, were the people who freed and protected them from unjust laws doing something wrong? How is it forgivable to obey the law (and thus allow innocent people to suffer) just because you don't want to break the law?
There's another point to be made. It's damn hard to get a law overturned, especially if nobody's been affected by it. If Sklyarov and the EFF manage to get the DMCA repealed (or modified), by showing how the law as it stands is unjust, then wasn't Sklyarov doing the RIGHT thing (albeit unknowingly) by violating an unjust law and thus provoking a TEST CASE to get the unjust law thrown out?
Just to be fair, it's not all open source bits... the kernel is, but Apple's put a LOT of work into the graphics layer (Quartz) and Carbon, which is really an amazing piece of work. Then there's all the NeXT stuff - the Cocoa frameworks, and all that.
It's not as if OS X is JUST unix with a pretty window manager.
Well, the very slowest PPC made (601 at 60MHz, circa 1994) was still far faster than a pentium 60.
That machine won't run LinuxPPC though; a 100MHz 601 in a 7500 is probably the minimum.
That's about like a pentium 120.
What's the machine you're going to run it on? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised... a 300MHz G3 runs Linux quite fast... and that's basically an iMac. I'm not sure where it'd stack compared with a Sparc (which Sparc? Ultra-IIi 400MHz is one thing; an old Sparc Classic is quite another).
When I interviewed for my current job, the people who are now my colleagues (I'm one of several sysadmins) did something very considerate. Rather than either trying to quiz me with acronyms or version numbers, or coming up with completely contrived examples, they showed me a couple REAL problems that they were currently trying to solve. One was a routing problem. I solved that problem, and basically came to the same conclusion that another sysadmin had come to. I got the job, because I proved that I could handle a real problem, not a silly contrived one.
If you're interviewing somebody, don't throw acronyms at them and ask them "do you know this?" because they'll either say yes or sidestep it. Headhunters tell interviewees never to say they don't know something. Instead, give the interviewee real problems to solve and see how they tackle them. Pay attention to how methodically they solve the problem, and ask them to explain their thought process to you.
System Administration is not about what you know; that stuff can (and should be) looked up in a manual, to avoid mistakes. It's about thought process, ingenuity, methodology, intuition, meticulousness, and overall problem solving skills. These are what you want to test. Obviously somebody needs to have worked with the basic software/hardware/equipment that you need them to work with. Obviously they need familiarity with your environment. But those are just minimal requirements; a good candidate should have a good understanding of how a network functions, how a unix system functions, and what goes wrong.
At my site, we have a lot of Solaris systems and also some chip testing equipment from companies like Teradyne. I didn't have any familiarity with the chip-testing equipment, other than the fact that they rely on an external Sun to provide services to an internal netbooted system. However, if my company had a requirement that any new hire needed to be familiar with the Teradyne stuff, they'd never find anyone to hire. I, and other employees, picked up that stuff fast enough; sometimes you need to acknowledge that with specialized hardware or software, some on-the-job training may be required.
Of COURSE MS separated this stuff out. Chances are they follow reasonably good engineering practices and put different classes in different files, separate interface from implementation, etc.
It sounds to me like they're trying to confuse the court with technospeak (for BOfH readers... kinda stuff), obfuscating an issue that has NOTHING to do with how the software is presented to the user (i.e., in an integrated manner).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's got both; BSD kernel (providing filesystem support, networking...) running on top of Mach kernel (providing threads, process control...)
Wilfredo Sanchez, among others.
Apple lost that case because it HAD licensed the Mac UI (or elements thereof) to MS for Windows 1.0 and subsequent versions, because otherwise MS threatened to cancel Word for Mac (which had 50% of the mac wp market).
This skin issue is different; nobody's licensed the look & feel from apple.
Hehehe
:)
they did mention *ionizing* the hull plating, which might help disperse particle-beam weapons; basically, the impression I got was that it's metal armor that can be ionized for more protection from energy weapons; when it went off-line, it was the ionization going offline (de-ionizing).
Maybe.
I'd much rather have soldiers armed with MP5s in airports, than have strong encryption made illegal.
As long as those soldiers are trained well, and are soldiers rather than typical american donut-munching cops, I'd feel safe; it'd be no different from any European airport.
What concerns me the most is the potential attack on safe (i.e. no back doors) encryption.
Well... would you settle for Alice, Q3, Aliens vs. Predator (yes, old game on Windows, but the new Mac version is very nicely updated and still fun), Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Oni, and a bunch of others? Unreal Tournament is being carbonized; Mark Adams is working on it, and is supposedly a couple weeks away from a public beta.
Hmm... I have heard of people getting retail PC GeForce2 and 3 cards working fine in a G4. The only difference I'm aware of is that the G4's AGP slot has an extra extension to it for providing power and USB signal to the Apple Desktop Connector bus. However, that connector doesn't need to be filled; while it means you can't use an Apple-OEM'ed card in a PC, you can still use a PC card in a Mac; it just doesn't use the extra ADC slot, which doesn't matter since the PC card won't have an ADC connector anyways.
Several companies make processor upgrades for current (and past) macs. Sonnet and Powerlogix are two of them. There are even processor upgrades for powerbooks; I upgraded my 233MHz powerbook G3 to a 466MHz CPU with a bigger cache, and it actually runs cooler.
RAM upgrades are obviously trivial; PC66, PC100, or PC133 depending on the model.
video cards in G4s are just AGP cards; there are currently NVidia and ATI drivers.
the only things that would be difficult to upgrade would be the motherboard (it's hard to get a new mobo by itself, and not cheap) and the power supply (not hard to replace it, but I don't know if there are any available that would fit that are UPGRADES (i.e. more powerful than the stock unit)).
XPress and Photoshop are coming... I'd expect by winter.
:(
Lotus Notes... ugh. I don't know what their plans are. Talk about the worst mail system known to mankind....
Nobody calls it the apple tax because Apple isn't charging licensing fees to another company that they pass off to you. Apple's per-unit cost for bundling Mac OS with a computer is zero, because they develop the OS and the hardware.
It'd be like trying to get a Palm without PalmOS.
Or it'd be like complaining that a Microsoft-brand PC came with Windows, if Microsoft sold its own brand of PCs.
You couldn't save any money by not having Mac OS bundled, because Apple doesn't have to pay a licensing fee to anybody for including Mac OS; thus no cost is being passed on to you.
On the other hand, Apple also doesn't make you type in annoying 25-character license keys to use the OS that came with your computer.
Because unlike Dell or Gateway, Apple has to recoup all their R&D costs, and they don't sell as many machines, so that cost is divided among fewer machines.
Do you mean the ones that are available already, like Omniweb, Stone Studio, Appleworks, BBEdit, Filemaker Pro, and tons of Unix apps?
Or the ones that'll be available this fall, like MS Office?
My dual 533MHz G4 runs OS X 10.0.4 as smooth as silk, even window resizing for the most part. 10.1 is what'll really help that on slower machines.
Yes, I think a G5 would make OS X really kick some wintel ass.
Filemaker Pro Server is already available for Linux, though.
>BTW the "watermark scrambler" would be illegal >under the DMCA I believe.
Only if it allowed circumvention of copyright controls.
Pfff, where I work, we still use rlogin. Say 'ssh' and people go 'huh?'
I'd love to change it, I really would.
Well, there are some quality apps such as Omniweb and the Stone suite, but this won't help bring big-name *commercial* apps to Linux (apps such as Photoshop, MS Office, etc) as those are mostly written to the Carbon APIs, rather than the Cocoa APIs that OpenStep is related to.
>>yes, I realize you can use a sony mp3 player to play music you paid for...
but not if that music is protected on CD with this sort of copy protection! This has nothing to do with playing mp3s off the net, and everything to do with being unable to rip to mp3 in the first place.
Another possibility - those who made the decision may not have been TOLD by Ashcroft or Bush to make that decision, but may have been otherwise pressured (indirectly) by them to make that decision. Merely saying that "Bush is buddies with Bill" was probably enough to change the DoJ's strategy, without constituting a direct order.
You make some good points. Another way to look at this (esp. the whole Napster thing, or your speeding example) is that when a LARGE percentage of a population (need not be an actual majority) are breaking the same law, the law needs to be examined closely.
Perhaps there's something quite wrong with society; if 30% of the population were murderers, this would definitely be the case. But perhaps it's an indication that the law should be changed. Should SO many people get speeding tickets all the time, especially when they're only a fraction ("selective enforcement" police units really scare me) of the total number of people speeding? Should everyone who used Napster be punished? Any society that has as large a percentage of its population in prison as ours does definitely has a problem (note: most of these people are in for drug-related offenses, which I think probably shouldn't be illegal).
A friend of mine often rants against unenforced laws; he thinks the speeding laws should be STRICTLY enforced, so that people would get pissed and demand that the law be changed. Perhaps this is true; it's a variation on the idea that a society that criminalizes (whether or not it punishes) a large % of the population has a major problem.
Sometimes, the only way to wake the public up to the fact that some laws are immoral or unjust is to violate those laws.
What if the State prohibited protest, and in fact prohibited trying to change the law in any way. Then even "democratic action" to change that law would be illegal. Thus, violating the law could be considered a moral imperative.
To put it another way, laws exist to try to keep society ordery. But when the laws are unjust, they must be changed, and it is possible that those laws will need to be broken to reform them. Laws do not equate to morals. I think there are many things that are illegal but not immoral, as well as many things that ARE immoral but not illegal.
Not everybody has the same morals, though on a Federal level this country has unified laws. However, some of those laws have been bought and paid for by large corporations, in a very undemocratic manner. When corporate lobbyists and greedy politicians ignore their constituents (which is easy since most Americans are now complacent tv-absorbing vegetables anyways, thanks to corporate america and the dumbing-down of media as well as education) then democracy is broken.
Turn it around - what if the law REQUIRED that all Blacks and Jews be rounded up and turned into the police for extermination. You'd be violating the law by providing safe harbor to those people whose lives were at stake. Would such a violation of the law be wrong? When slaves in America were just property with no rights, were the people who freed and protected them from unjust laws doing something wrong? How is it forgivable to obey the law (and thus allow innocent people to suffer) just because you don't want to break the law?
There's another point to be made. It's damn hard to get a law overturned, especially if nobody's been affected by it. If Sklyarov and the EFF manage to get the DMCA repealed (or modified), by showing how the law as it stands is unjust, then wasn't Sklyarov doing the RIGHT thing (albeit unknowingly) by violating an unjust law and thus provoking a TEST CASE to get the unjust law thrown out?
Just to be fair, it's not all open source bits... the kernel is, but Apple's put a LOT of work into the graphics layer (Quartz) and Carbon, which is really an amazing piece of work. Then there's all the NeXT stuff - the Cocoa frameworks, and all that.
It's not as if OS X is JUST unix with a pretty window manager.
Well, the very slowest PPC made (601 at 60MHz, circa 1994) was still far faster than a pentium 60.
That machine won't run LinuxPPC though; a 100MHz 601 in a 7500 is probably the minimum.
That's about like a pentium 120.
What's the machine you're going to run it on? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised... a 300MHz G3 runs Linux quite fast... and that's basically an iMac. I'm not sure where it'd stack compared with a Sparc (which Sparc? Ultra-IIi 400MHz is one thing; an old Sparc Classic is quite another).
When I interviewed for my current job, the people who are now my colleagues (I'm one of several sysadmins) did something very considerate. Rather than either trying to quiz me with acronyms or version numbers, or coming up with completely contrived examples, they showed me a couple REAL problems that they were currently trying to solve. One was a routing problem. I solved that problem, and basically came to the same conclusion that another sysadmin had come to. I got the job, because I proved that I could handle a real problem, not a silly contrived one.
If you're interviewing somebody, don't throw acronyms at them and ask them "do you know this?" because they'll either say yes or sidestep it. Headhunters tell interviewees never to say they don't know something. Instead, give the interviewee real problems to solve and see how they tackle them. Pay attention to how methodically they solve the problem, and ask them to explain their thought process to you.
System Administration is not about what you know; that stuff can (and should be) looked up in a manual, to avoid mistakes. It's about thought process, ingenuity, methodology, intuition, meticulousness, and overall problem solving skills. These are what you want to test. Obviously somebody needs to have worked with the basic software/hardware/equipment that you need them to work with. Obviously they need familiarity with your environment. But those are just minimal requirements; a good candidate should have a good understanding of how a network functions, how a unix system functions, and what goes wrong.
At my site, we have a lot of Solaris systems and also some chip testing equipment from companies like Teradyne. I didn't have any familiarity with the chip-testing equipment, other than the fact that they rely on an external Sun to provide services to an internal netbooted system. However, if my company had a requirement that any new hire needed to be familiar with the Teradyne stuff, they'd never find anyone to hire. I, and other employees, picked up that stuff fast enough; sometimes you need to acknowledge that with specialized hardware or software, some on-the-job training may be required.
Of COURSE MS separated this stuff out. Chances are they follow reasonably good engineering practices and put different classes in different files, separate interface from implementation, etc.
It sounds to me like they're trying to confuse the court with technospeak (for BOfH readers... kinda stuff), obfuscating an issue that has NOTHING to do with how the software is presented to the user (i.e., in an integrated manner).