Apple sold operating systems before 1984. And they're not selling an 'Operating System' in that plastic/metal box. They're selling appliances. Like a toaster or a fax machine.
I have about a dozen Macs. But I'm a NetBSD user right now. Even on some of my Macs.
I use Windows, too, on some machines.
None of my Macs are running OSX. Darwin is adequate for what I want, and I only need one proprietary 'the apps are all expensive' platform (Windows, though all my 'apps' for Windows are now reaching middle-age since I'm not buying any more)
Back in the day it use to be cool to be a programmer.
It can still be cool to be a programmer. You just have to find the right job where:
You get to wirewrap the breadboard yourself. Or you've got a damn good technician to do that who you can tip a few beers with after work. But essentially you've got 'hands on' access to the entire design.
You get to code the firmware and management foots the bill for the megabux emulator you plug into your breadboard circuit and get to play with.
You get to dicker with the guys from the LCD house about the design and layout of the display.
The marketing people come by once in awhile to suggest features to add, but they understand the whole user interface can't be changed on a whim.
Basically, you need to find a small company where you can wear multiple hats and do the real stuff, not a crummy 'application' programming job.
You're going to get all righteous about mere 'programmers' in your second paragraph, right after advocating going into marketing in your first paragraph?
I'm a little uncomfortable that even here on Slashdot, the terms 'IT' and 'computer science' get liberally mixed together as if they are interchangable terms.
'IT' is about people who shuffle around business information. And maintain printers and networks and mundane tasks. Data janitors, basically.
'Computer science' is about algorithms, the theory of data structures, etc (and 'paradigms' of objected oriented what-not and fad trends, of course).
Actually, I have machines with far less memory than that. An 8086-based machine that runs Microsoft Xenix (the first port of Unix to the x86 platform was by Microsoft from BEFORE they produced MS-DOS. It supports five users in 512K of RAM.
I just finished installing DOS and MASM on an old 386sx laptop that has two megs of RAM in it (for a 'retreat' machine to get away from the big modern world to Assembly Language). Hell, my only Powerbook only has 4 megs of RAM in it...
When you bought your new 286 to replace the 8086, all your games ran too fast.
Actually, by that time it wasn't very useful for that function. It switched your 12 MHz '286 into being a 6 MHz '286, which was STILL too fast compared to an 8088.
It was a useful feature in earlier incarnations, i.e. when it switched your 10 MHz 8088 machine to be a 'stock' IBM 4.77 MHz machine.
Linux USED to run better on older hardware. I remember those days. Good old Slackware 3.4 on a nice old 486 system.
But the current popular 'desktop' Linux systems are actually LESS usable than Windows on similar hardware. I've run Linux with OpenOffice and Windows 98 with Office 2000 on my 486 laptop. Office 2000 whips the butt off OO on such hardware. It's actually useful.
Linux has gotten fat and lazy in it's middle age. And that's sad, for a software project that got a big boost in the early days from the fact that it made hardware useful again that Redmondware had rendered obsolete.
I'm running FVWM2 on this aging Dell Optiplex that is my main system. I run TWM on my Macintosh SE/30 (both systems run NetBSD).
I have 'expanded horizontally' over the past few years. My 'computer' is a bunch of boxes connected to a KVM switch. None faster than 800 MHz, and all getting good use. I use the 800 MHz box for video capture and video editing, BTW.
The point is that general-purpose 'desktop' chips and embedded controllers are radically different animals.
The sales of iPod chips don't 'combine' with desktop chip sales in any sense of 'economy of scale.' The chips probably aren't even sourced from the same purchasing departments.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither is 'nearly universal.'
Apple sold operating systems before 1984. And they're not selling an 'Operating System' in that plastic/metal box. They're selling appliances. Like a toaster or a fax machine.
I have about a dozen Macs. But I'm a NetBSD user right now. Even on some of my Macs.
I use Windows, too, on some machines.
None of my Macs are running OSX. Darwin is adequate for what I want, and I only need one proprietary 'the apps are all expensive' platform (Windows, though all my 'apps' for Windows are now reaching middle-age since I'm not buying any more)
What is it you want that you can't get from Build-To-Order?
A PPC, Apple-sanctioned ATX footprint motherboard. Ideally from multiple sources.
They can keep their 'industrial design' for some of their other customers.
Nothing like having some 15-year-old punk there telling you that your relativistic velocity calculation method is SO inefficient and stupid...
Was it inefficient and stupid? Why did the age of the person who pointed that out to you matter so much?
Back in the day it use to be cool to be a programmer.
It can still be cool to be a programmer. You just have to find the right job where:
You get to wirewrap the breadboard yourself. Or you've got a damn good technician to do that who you can tip a few beers with after work. But essentially you've got 'hands on' access to the entire design.
You get to code the firmware and management foots the bill for the megabux emulator you plug into your breadboard circuit and get to play with.
You get to dicker with the guys from the LCD house about the design and layout of the display.
The marketing people come by once in awhile to suggest features to add, but they understand the whole user interface can't be changed on a whim.
Basically, you need to find a small company where you can wear multiple hats and do the real stuff, not a crummy 'application' programming job.
You're going to get all righteous about mere 'programmers' in your second paragraph, right after advocating going into marketing in your first paragraph?
Hmmm...
I'm a little uncomfortable that even here on Slashdot, the terms 'IT' and 'computer science' get liberally mixed together as if they are interchangable terms.
'IT' is about people who shuffle around business information. And maintain printers and networks and mundane tasks. Data janitors, basically.
'Computer science' is about algorithms, the theory of data structures, etc (and 'paradigms' of objected oriented what-not and fad trends, of course).
They aren't interchangable terms.
Actually, I have machines with far less memory than that. An 8086-based machine that runs Microsoft Xenix (the first port of Unix to the x86 platform was by Microsoft from BEFORE they produced MS-DOS. It supports five users in 512K of RAM.
I just finished installing DOS and MASM on an old 386sx laptop that has two megs of RAM in it (for a 'retreat' machine to get away from the big modern world to Assembly Language). Hell, my only Powerbook only has 4 megs of RAM in it...
The fastest Pentium Pro processor was 200 MHz. (there was a rare 'overdrive' Pentium Pro part, but it wasn't 233 MHz.)
There never was a 4 MHz '286. The first IBM-AT machines were 6 MHz.
The first IBM-XT machines were 4.77 MHz.
When you bought your new 286 to replace the 8086, all your games ran too fast.
Actually, by that time it wasn't very useful for that function. It switched your 12 MHz '286 into being a 6 MHz '286, which was STILL too fast compared to an 8088.
It was a useful feature in earlier incarnations, i.e. when it switched your 10 MHz 8088 machine to be a 'stock' IBM 4.77 MHz machine.
Umm, what can't Windows 2000 do today that XP can? (aside from phone home to Bill if I change the ethernet card?)
Linux USED to run better on older hardware. I remember those days. Good old Slackware 3.4 on a nice old 486 system.
But the current popular 'desktop' Linux systems are actually LESS usable than Windows on similar hardware. I've run Linux with OpenOffice and Windows 98 with Office 2000 on my 486 laptop. Office 2000 whips the butt off OO on such hardware. It's actually useful.
Linux has gotten fat and lazy in it's middle age. And that's sad, for a software project that got a big boost in the early days from the fact that it made hardware useful again that Redmondware had rendered obsolete.
I'm running FVWM2 on this aging Dell Optiplex that is my main system. I run TWM on my Macintosh SE/30 (both systems run NetBSD).
I have 'expanded horizontally' over the past few years. My 'computer' is a bunch of boxes connected to a KVM switch. None faster than 800 MHz, and all getting good use. I use the 800 MHz box for video capture and video editing, BTW.
My Powerbook 165C and my two SE/30's aren't going ANYWHERE. They're here to stay and will continue to be used.
(I run NetBSD on one of the SE/30's, though)
Apply Occam's Razor.
They're incompetent.
As I said, the parts probably aren't even sourced by the same purchasing departments.
iPod and the Mac desktop are completely different divisions of Apple.
I have a BUNCH of laptops without USB.
John was a limousine liberal, and thus the song was meant to be taken as sarcastic to a degree.
.
He wasn't stating that the working class was below him. Nothing as direct as that. .
No, my point was that your 'everybody will be on the net' hype sounds like Dot.com triumphalism.
Not gonna happen.
When "everyone" (think "everyone uses IE") is on the net
1998 called, and wanted to know if it could borrow some of whatever you're smoking.
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see,
Fine sentiment from John. He was kinda angry that the armchair revolution he joined kinda fizzled in the real world. Oh well.
The point is that general-purpose 'desktop' chips and embedded controllers are radically different animals.
The sales of iPod chips don't 'combine' with desktop chip sales in any sense of 'economy of scale.' The chips probably aren't even sourced from the same purchasing departments.
And naked!