The Zero cost game on subscription model suffers from a distribution problem for boxes. The distribution model would have to be by online download only.
But how cool would that be? Make an entertaining Flash Ad with a built in link to sign up right away.
It's not like these games don't require hours of downloads when you first connect anyway.
It concntrates on the Darwin OS core of Mac OS X's suport for architectures other than PPC.
Notable quotes are:
Just because you can read Darwin on a PC, though, doesn't mean that you can run Mac OS on your x86 box. Mac OS includes many layers of proprietary software such as Cocoa, Quartz 2D, QuickTime and OpenGL graphics. You can forget about downloading Gnu-Darwin or OpenDarwin and start running Mac OS X or most OS X applications on an x86 system. You simply can't do it.
and...
Of course, if Apple elects to only ship its operating system with its own branded hardware, it will avoid this problem. On the other hand, most of the push for Mac OS on Intel historically has come from users who wanted to use the operating system on commodity-priced x86 hardware.
Incidentally, Apple's own download of it's open source (APSL - Apple Public Source Licence) darwin code is available here for x86...
You will need to join the Apple developer network to get at this link though.
Let's just say that it is all a step in the right direction. Whether Apple sticks with proprietary hardware or moves on to a more open hardware and becomes more of a software company remains to be seen. At the moment it is only going to be available on a specific Apple supplied hardware bundle, as per the keynote which says the OS X for Intel preview will be supplied with an Intel 3.6GHz machine.
In the long term though, the model of the software only company has been a fairly proven business model in Microsoft as compared to almost any hardware vendor you can care to name. Arguments about the XBox not withstanding.
Those that are mad keen could always join the Apple developer network, hack the preview OS X to work with non-standard hardware sets and see what happens. Another alternative for the mad keen is Pear PC, a PPC emulator, found here:
Now, as I was asking earlier: since DAP is older than LDAP, and LDAP was invented because DAP wasn't being used, and since LDAP has been used to implement larger directories than DAP ever has, and since global directories are possible and dare I say only mature on LDAP (ironically fulfilling ITUT's dream of a global directory), why is DAP better?
DAP server side implementations do not limit themselves to DAP only clients. The X.500 directory I've used the most supports LDAPv3 clients equally as well as DAP clients. DAP servers also implement DSP and DISP communication protocols for proper distribution as mentioned earlier.
Now while DAP is clearly older, it doesn't mean that technology built around it has been standing still. For instance most X.500 directories communicate over TCP/IP rather than at the OSI level as I think a previous poster correctly mentioned.
Anyway, I think we are arguing at cross purposes, We're probably the only three people still reading this thread and one thing is for certain, we all think Directories (whatever their flavor) are pretty cool. It's been nice arguing with you all.:-)
I don't dispute that DAP may do things that LDAP can't. But you haven't definied what you mean by 'proper distribution of data' means, you're just saying LDAP doesn't do something the way you want. Linux and Windows and OS X and Solaris can share LDAP servers. There are massive global LDAP directories that work very well. More detail, please.
Thanks for the reply. I think there is a degree of confusion here between X.500 distribution and LDAP referrals. A referral system forces the work back onto the client and therefore does not support proper server side distribution. I believe there are performance issues in this approach that do not lend LDAP only servers well to certain performance sensitive applications.
I can see this descending into a rather long debate so here is a good link that I think fairly explains the differences between X.500 and LDAP.
I've only used OpenLDAP, AD and Open Directory (now Computer Associate's eTrust Directory) so I'm willing to be corrected on the exact features of Netscape's directory.
To my knowledge there are only 3 X.500 directories on the market, none of which are free or open source.:-(
It's all very well and good to have a lightweight directory system as part of your operating system. However, if Red Hat wants it's identity management system to be more than a lightweight, it should consider asking Netscape to implement more features of the X.500 Directory standard.
The problem with LDAP is that adding the 'L' (lightweight) to the 'DAP' (directory access protocol) removed many features including, most noticably, proper distribution of data over multiple servers and proper chaining of requests.
Proper distribution and request chaining protools would allow Linux systems and MS systems to share a perceived common user data store. At the moment, hybrid enterprises are forced to support multiple islands of trust in the organization. It also sets the operational limits of the system to an enterprise/employee rather than a global/customer scale solution.
Still, it's a good thing that Red Hat is implementing a directory based identity management solution. It's a step in the right direction.
No one would have believed, in the first years of the twenty-first century, that Martian affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space.... Few Martians even considered the possibility of life on other planets and yet, across the gulf of space, minds infinitely odder than ours regarded Mars with envious eyes, and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans againsts us.....
(cue 70's concept album music now)
[Thanks to my friend Jay for this one]
Slashdot Mirror
The Zero cost game on subscription model suffers from a distribution problem for boxes. The distribution model would have to be by online download only.
But how cool would that be? Make an entertaining Flash Ad with a built in link to sign up right away.
It's not like these games don't require hours of downloads when you first connect anyway.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824229,00.as p
It concntrates on the Darwin OS core of Mac OS X's suport for architectures other than PPC.
Notable quotes are:
Just because you can read Darwin on a PC, though, doesn't mean that you can run Mac OS on your x86 box. Mac OS includes many layers of proprietary software such as Cocoa, Quartz 2D, QuickTime and OpenGL graphics. You can forget about downloading Gnu-Darwin or OpenDarwin and start running Mac OS X or most OS X applications on an x86 system. You simply can't do it.
and...
Of course, if Apple elects to only ship its operating system with its own branded hardware, it will avoid this problem. On the other hand, most of the push for Mac OS on Intel historically has come from users who wanted to use the operating system on commodity-priced x86 hardware.
Incidentally, Apple's own download of it's open source (APSL - Apple Public Source Licence) darwin code is available here for x86...
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
You will need to join the Apple developer network to get at this link though.
Let's just say that it is all a step in the right direction. Whether Apple sticks with proprietary hardware or moves on to a more open hardware and becomes more of a software company remains to be seen. At the moment it is only going to be available on a specific Apple supplied hardware bundle, as per the keynote which says the OS X for Intel preview will be supplied with an Intel 3.6GHz machine.
In the long term though, the model of the software only company has been a fairly proven business model in Microsoft as compared to almost any hardware vendor you can care to name. Arguments about the XBox not withstanding.
Those that are mad keen could always join the Apple developer network, hack the preview OS X to work with non-standard hardware sets and see what happens. Another alternative for the mad keen is Pear PC, a PPC emulator, found here:
http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2005 /01/18/PearPC.html
Enjoy!
DAP server side implementations do not limit themselves to DAP only clients. The X.500 directory I've used the most supports LDAPv3 clients equally as well as DAP clients. DAP servers also implement DSP and DISP communication protocols for proper distribution as mentioned earlier.
Now while DAP is clearly older, it doesn't mean that technology built around it has been standing still. For instance most X.500 directories communicate over TCP/IP rather than at the OSI level as I think a previous poster correctly mentioned.
Anyway, I think we are arguing at cross purposes, We're probably the only three people still reading this thread and one thing is for certain, we all think Directories (whatever their flavor) are pretty cool. It's been nice arguing with you all. :-)
Thanks for the reply. I think there is a degree of confusion here between X.500 distribution and LDAP referrals. A referral system forces the work back onto the client and therefore does not support proper server side distribution. I believe there are performance issues in this approach that do not lend LDAP only servers well to certain performance sensitive applications.
I can see this descending into a rather long debate so here is a good link that I think fairly explains the differences between X.500 and LDAP.
http://tinyurl.com/7829u
I've only used OpenLDAP, AD and Open Directory (now Computer Associate's eTrust Directory) so I'm willing to be corrected on the exact features of Netscape's directory.
To my knowledge there are only 3 X.500 directories on the market, none of which are free or open source. :-(
- Isode Directory (http://www.isode.com/)
- Siemens DirXServer (http://www.siemens.ie/fixedoperators/CarrierNetw
o rks/Meta/meta_range.htm)
- eTrust Directory (http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=160)
By the way, don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that someone has GPL'd Netscape directory. Together with a nice free Java based LDAP browser client...http://pegacat.com/jxplorer/
I think it gives Red Hat a huge boost.
The problem with LDAP is that adding the 'L' (lightweight) to the 'DAP' (directory access protocol) removed many features including, most noticably, proper distribution of data over multiple servers and proper chaining of requests.
Proper distribution and request chaining protools would allow Linux systems and MS systems to share a perceived common user data store. At the moment, hybrid enterprises are forced to support multiple islands of trust in the organization. It also sets the operational limits of the system to an enterprise/employee rather than a global/customer scale solution.
Still, it's a good thing that Red Hat is implementing a directory based identity management solution. It's a step in the right direction.
No one would have believed, in the first years of the twenty-first century, that Martian affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space. ... Few Martians even considered the possibility of life on other planets and yet, across the gulf of space, minds infinitely odder than ours regarded Mars with envious eyes, and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans againsts us .....
(cue 70's concept album music now)
[Thanks to my friend Jay for this one]