To me all this looks suspiciously like the long drawn out but failing efforts to revive the Amiga OS.
I am all for work, research and development of alternative OS technologies, but it should be obvious by now that there is no way a new OS can can become successful in this day and age unless it is based on open source.
Even SUN had to learn this lesson the hard way. If they couldn't make Solaris take off against Windows in the x86 space, how much chance do companies like Yellow Tab or Hyperion (AmigaOS) have?
Wouldn't it be better to support the open source Haiku OS project and then make money on something built on top of that?
As I understand it, one of the more useful applications envisaged for the technique is not to find out what the actual weight of a given molecule is, but to detect the presence of a particular molecule, such as certain proteins which are present in blood in the very early stages of cancer and which are very difficult to detect with today's methods.
You're mistaken. NeXT always had it's own windowing system which was based on Display Postscript (DPS). It was NOT based on the X Window System.
from Wikipedia...
"The developers of NeXT wrote a completely new windowing engine to take full advantage of NeXT's object oriented operating system. A number of commands were added to DPS to actually create the windows and to react to events, similar to but simpler than NeWS..."
It would seem you totally got the wrong idea what my post was all about. In no event would I encourage anyone to steal code. My message was and still is this...
Don't expect Apple to provide a free lunch. Instead, if you want to have a meal that's not on the menu, go to another restaurant or stay at home and cook for yourself.
Let me say this once again... those who want OSX technologies on x86 have it pretty good. Apple have made their core OS available as open source and there is even a binary installation kit for x86. In addition, their primary API is based on an open standard, OPENSTEP, for which there is an open source implementation, even including development tools that are comparable to Apple's. If anybody wants to roll their own, they don't have to start from scratch, they can jump right in and contribute towards completing any missing bits.
Instead of fantasising about stealing Apple's code, jokingly or not, you should rather be grateful that Apple has made it fairly straightforward for anyone committed enough to use and replicate OSX technologies on other platforms if they wish.
So, by all means, I encourage you, go ahead, install Darwin x86 and GNUstep on your PC and contribute to the project.
Sure, this means you have to do some work and I agree it would be nice if there was an ISO CD image from which x86 PC owners could install both Darwin x86 and GNUstep all in one go so they could more easily give this a try and perhaps become supporters of the project. Then again, there is nothing that stops you or anyone else from building such an ISO CD image and make it available.
In an interview last year, an Apple executive confirmed that an x86 port of OSX, aka Marklar does exist in Apple's labs and that they are keeping it on par with PPC development.
Before the release of the G5, Steve Jobs said in another interview that they do not plan to move to x86 but that they like to keep their options open.
If you take these two statements and add one and one together, it should become obvious that they have no intent to change their business model from making and selling "hardware including software" to "software including hardware" or even "software only". In other words, Marklar is just an insurance policy against unpredictable disaster scenarios where Apple would be forced to move to another CPU and as a result, Apple have a stronger negotiating position with IBM.
Consequently, for as long as IBM do a good job on fostering PPC, for as long as PPC is competitive, Apple have very little reason to move.
And should they ever decide to move, or should they decide to offer OSX on x86 in addition to PPC, their business model will almost certainly remain the same, meaning OSX will continue to be made to run on Apple hardware only, regardless of CPU compatibility.
So, you would then see an x86 Mac with exactly the same treats as today, from OpenFirmware to Apple's own motherboard designs, not compatible with other x86 hardware. In fact, such an x86 Mac might even have a custom x86 CPU, made only for Apple, ie bolted on AltiVec compatible SIMD. Without specific hacks, OSX would not run on other x86 machines. Likewise, Windows would probably not run on such an x86 Mac without some extra software from Microsoft, eg. Virtual PC or Mac/x86. Such an arrangement would also likely have Microsoft continue MS-Office development for the Mac - even more reason for Apple to choose such a path if they ever were to go x86.
So, whether or not Apple will release OSX on x86, if you want OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware, you will almost certainly have to rig your own.
Mind you, you can do this within limits already today. Darwin, the core of OSX, is available for x86 and it's a free download...
GNUstep is the GNU implementation of OPENSTEP, the foundation on which Cocoa is build. In addition, GNUstep has some, but not all of the things Apple has added, so you get Cocoa compatibility within limits. This is as close as you can get OSX on x86 today. It's free, but it requires a little more effort than an OSX installation on a Mac. And if you want the OSX eye candy, you will also need to do a bit of DIY. If you do, consider becoming a contributor to the GNUstep project.
Thus, it comes down to paying a little extra for convenience or save some money and put in some work. You can't have it both ways. Remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I wonder if it has never ocurred to anyone that if singularity does exist for a given form of intelligence, such as human intelligence, then there probably also exists a singularity for any other form of intelligence, such as the superseding superhuman intelligence.
In other words, every form of intelligence may have its own limits and thus its own singularity.
Where does this strange belief come from that once intelligence evolves into machine intelligence it will then continue as machine intelligence ad infitum?
Consider the following scenario...
Humankind invents a machine that surpasses human intelligence. This machine intelligence advances itself to the point where it finds its own limits and it invents a purely biological machine to overcome those limits. A new superhuman but biological and thus once again human race is thus created and the whole cycle may start all over again.
Another scenario could be...
Humankind invents a machine that surpasses human intelligence which in turn invents a new form of intelligence based neither on machinery nor on biology, but on something we can't even fathom, say radiation, gravity, whatever.
In any event, I am having difficulties to accept that just because you surpass one barrier, this automatically means that there are no further such barriers.
I tend to think that it is quite possible Microsoft may eventually go a similar route than Apple have gone with OSX and build a new operating system on top of some *nix flavour. By 2015, Windows will most likely still be what you would expect Windows to look and feel like, but it may be an evolved.NET and Avalon/Aero on top of a *nix core with a POSIX API and a legacy Windows API for backwards compatibility.
Microsoft may step in and purchase SCO's software assets when SCO goes into liquidation and then use that as a base for their own *nix.
It is also possible that they eventually overcome their stubborn views on open source and use BSD to do their own *nix, released under some half hearted open source license that doesn't quite fit the requirements of what is commonly accepted as an open source license but still goes much further than their shared source thing today.
There are quite a number of reasons why they might do this. For one, it would allow them to do better in the PR battle. They could then say "Look, we are doing open source, too." and many parties, ie governments, anti-trust agencies, courts etc would just buy this regardless of how poor their license may be.
Another benefit for Microsoft would be that they don't have to spend as much effort on reinventing the wheel. If they have a POSIX compliant *nix core, they can take advantage of all the OSS code that's out there which now they often have to replicate. Yes, they want to dominate the market and use their OS as a leverage to do so, but they may just realise that in order to dominate, it is sufficient to dominate the most important APIs.
In my opinion, the battle over OSes will shift to a battle over APIs in the not so distant future. As APIs will become more important, the underlying core OS will become less of an issue, it may just become a commodity.
To illustrate this, consider the following scenario: Imagine, for argument's sake that GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org) was to mature significant enough to take off and attract more and more application developers, first on top of Linux and BSD, later Solaris and eventually taking hold of Windows. Imagine, somehow the balance on Windows application development was to shift to OPENSTEP/GNUstep. This would allow developers to write applications that would run unmodified on all major desktop platforms. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but if it was to happen, the effect would be that Microsoft would lose most if not all of the leverage they have right now.
Microsoft know this and that is why they fought such a bitter war with SUN Microsystems over Java on Windows, eventually abandoning Java and rolling their own.
All this goes to show that the APIs are more important for dominance than the underlying OS core and as a result, the OS core is therefore likely to become a commodity eventually. By 2015, the battle over OSes as we know them may have long become a thing of the past and the battle over APIs may be on.
The warning that an executable is being launched for the first time is standard on MacOS X for _any_ executable. The warning is initiated by the OS, not the executable itself. It thus applies to _every_ program indeed.
If you haven't seen this, then you either haven't launched any new applications since this feature was introduced, or you are running an older version of OSX. I can't tell you exactly when this was introduced, but it has been around for a while now - my best guess would be sometime between 10.3.3 and 10.3.7.
As far as your assertion of "stupid users" who will click on anything and proceed regardless of how many warnings they are being given, is concerned I tend to think that it is not the "stupidity" of users but the presentation of alerts by the OS which makes a big difference.
Remember that there have been attempts of trojans for OSX not so long ago and they didn't cause a major impact. I seem to remember that only one person reported to have launched a hostile script and getting hit as a result.
In my opinion the way the alerts are being presented makes a big difference. I believe that Microsoft could improve the security of Windows users significantly if only they worked out how to properly alert people, how to design alerts in such a way that even lazy folks who always click through will have to stop and think before they click.
If somebody succeeds, the news would be so big, Apple would likely react within hours and release a security update to fix the vulnerability. They have a pretty good track record dealing with vulnerabilities when they have become known and Mac users appear to be taking security updates very seriously. Not many will neglect to apply a security update certainly not if news of a successful attack have been all over the media. The end result would be an even more secure OS and even less incentive for attackers to target the Mac platform.
Sending an executable as a mail attachment is easy, but fooling a user into launching is is much harder on the Mac than it is on Windows.
Unlike Windows, the MacOS uses filesystem embedded filetype and resource fork information to determine what kind of file a file is. You can't just change the filename into photo.jpg or letter.doc to make the attachment look like a photo or a word document. If it is an executable, the Mac will show it as such.
This means you will have to convince the user that the ececutable in question comes from a trusted source and that it is safe to launch. Even then, MacOS X will open a dialog that explains to the user that this is the first time this application is about to be launched, that it might be dangerous and then ask if the user wants to proceed. At that point most Mac users will cancel if they are not sure what this application is and where it came from.
But even if they proceed to launch the application, then the application still won't be able to install anything on the user's machine. If it tries to do that, the user will again be notified that some software is about to be installed and that an administrator password is required to do so.
Somebody would have to be incredibly naive to ignore all the warnings and still proceed.
This type of attack is rather unlikely to be successful in causing a spreading of the trojan. The propagation mechanism is far too weak. The news about such an attack will be all over the net before the trojan had a chance to propagate.
If anybody is to succeed with an attack against the Mac, it would have to be an exploit of some security flaw in the OS or in a privileged application.
The IPA is a Japanese government agency and as such every bit as bureaucratic as anything else going in Japan Inc.
I know of quite a number of cases where the IPA has turned down to fund interesting open source projects, the kind of projects most Slashdot readers would be very much in favour of.
If you are a small or medium sized business in Japan and you want money from the IPA's program to develop open source, you have to go through a lot of hoops to actually get funded. Most of the money the government has alotted for this progeam isn't spent and it is not for lack of applicants.
If you do decide to apply, you have to prepare an application that most SMEs won't have the expertise to do. They will need to spend $$$ on ex-government officials turned consultants to prepare the application for them.
Then if you do get invited to present your application at the IPA, you will find yourself with 3 or 4 employees of your company in a room with about 15 to 20 Japanese government officials, every one of whom will ask questions that are pretty humiliating for small and medium sized companies.
The tenor is pretty much like "Who the heck are you guys? Is three people all you can muster? How big is your company? Have you done this before? Have you got any backing by big corporations with recognised names and brands?"
The smaller your company, the more likely your application will be judged not on its own merits but on prejudice against anything small and without a big name.
The IPA program may look different on the outset but under the surface it is just the same old way of Japan Inc.
First, the IPA does not expressly support Linux. Its progam is to further the use of open source software in Japan. And in fact you will find that many government sponsored research projects in Japan are based on BSD and not Linux. A prominent example is the KAME project (IPsec and IPv6).
Second, Apple has embraced open source software and it is supporting and contributing to open source projects. Some of the work Apple is contributing directly supports otherwise Linux centric projects, for example KHTML.
Also, it should not be forgotten that Apple sponsored and contributed most of the work on MkLinux. In any event, the impression you try to create with your wording, that Apple is in one boat with Microsoft in resisting open source is nothing more than spin.
When Einstein found that according to his mathematical models, the universe was expanding, he didn't think this made any sense and so he invented the cosmological constant to his formulas to neutralise the expansion of the universe.
When applying the "correction" the universe appeared to be standing still and everything was hunky dory, at least until many many years later when evidence was mounting that the universe was indeed expanding.
Einstein then called the cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life.
Apparently, his formulas were more trustworthy than even he himself was willing to believe.
With Cable Internet services the Cable TV operator is the only internet service provider on the cable network and no other provider has any right to gain access to that network providing their own service.
With DSL services the situation is different. Internel service providers have the right to get access to the telco's network to provide their own service over DSL in competition with the telco that owns the wires.
The telcos would like to get the same monopoly status that cable operators have. Internet service providers would like to get the same access right to cable networks that they have to telco's DSL networks.
The FCC has tried to argue that there is a difference between cable and DSL that justifies the difference in access rights. Not everybody agrees with that view and so the issue went to the courts.
You seem to assume that Apple will rest on their laurels. Recent additions include such things as core image and core video which is quite a leap forward.
www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/coreimage.html
Also, it's not just about how things appear on screen, but how it all works underneath and also how it is being used by application developers.
What gives OSX a lead in the GUI department is the Cocoa Framework and programming model, associated development tools and consistent use of interface design guidelines.
I wouldn't consider Linux to be catching up to OSX in the GUI space _unless_ GNUstep becomes more mature, gets a more modern appearance and is going to be widely and consistently used for application development on Linux.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to praise Apple here. After all, this technology came from NeXT and was at some point in time co-developed with SUN. Apple were just extremely lucky that NeXT saved their butts with this awesome technology.
Let's be honest, compared to other Unix windowing systems such as NEWS and OPENSTEP, X11 is archaic. It's bad enough that NEWS didn't catch on as a standard. Hopefully GNUstep will become more mature and finally take off, now that it is nearing a 1.0 release.
1. Make 911 call center numbers available to VOIP providers
That's not such a good idea. The numbers will eventually leak out and then those call centres will get overwhelmed with prank calls via gateways overseas or other routes where the caller ID is stripped off and the caller cannot easily be traced back.
If you do give VOIP providers access to those call centres, then you do it by setting up a direct link between the VOIP provider's switches and the call centre. This could be done through PSTN circuits or by setting up a VPN between the VOIP provider and the call centre and a VOIP/Trunk gateway at the call centre PBX.
The problem of connectivity is however not a technical one. There are hundreds of VOIP providers and connecting them all requires some coordinated effort or it will be a big mess.
2. Embed GPS chips in black box VOIP boxes and configure them to send location information when 911 is dialed
That would still require a major integration effort to make sense of the location coordinates in order to send them to the correct 911 call centre and to translate them into human readable address for the 911 operator.
Still, neither can you expect this to be present in every VOIP device, nor can you be sure it will work all the time, especially since you are unlikely to get GPS readings inside buildings when the phone is not located close to the window. You got to have a backup for those cases where GPS isn't present or doesn't work.
3. Require VOIP providers to ask customers the expected physical location of their VOIP phone so that 911 will work when there is no GPS data
4. Require that VOIP providers inform customers that 911 will go to this location if they move their phone
5. Require VOIP providers to allow users to change this location easily either through their phone, or a web interface
6. Require VOIP providers to ask the "where is your phone" question again if other customer information like billing address changes
If you rely on manual updates, people will forget to update, so this is no different from putting warnings on your website informing customers that they ought to do this or that in order to make sure that 911 will work properly.
Also, you seem to forget that VOIP devices are already used in a mobile fashion. Analog telephone adapters such as the Grandstream HandyTone series or the Digium IAXy are specifically designed for travel. You take them with you and plug them in wherever you have an internet connection. There are also software VOIP phones such as Firefly or X-Lite which run on notebook computers and they can connect to just about any VOIP service provider there is with the exception of Skype which is a closed system. Last but not least, there are more and more WiFi VOIP phones coming onto the market and quite possibly this is where the entire VOIP device market will move to. So how are you going to keep track of the location of all those portable/mobile devices? The answer is you can't.
For a simple solution, at least for the time being, major VOIP providers such as Vonage may want to look at how 911 service is handled by mobile phone companies in various countries. In the UK for example, each mobile phone operator has its own emergency call center. If you dial 999 (the UK equivalent of 911) on a mobile phone in the UK, you don't get connected to the police directly. Instead, you get connected to an operator in the mobile phone company's call centre and they ask you what kind of assistance you require. They can also see what your mobile phone number is and which area you are in. They will then bridge your call into a conference call with the appropriate emergency call centre and announce your number and location to the emergency services operator. Once the link is established and you are talking to the emergency services operator directly, the operator of the mobile phone company will drop out of the conference.
This is a proven system which could be adapted for us
Linus himself has been on public record at multiple occasions saying that "operating system code is nothing that is invented and that he is not an inventor.
What you are looking for is a dual mode cell/cordless phone and a corresponding base station. Such things exist but they are not cheap. Typical combinations are GSM/DECT (European cordless) and GSM/PHS (Japanese cordless).
The phones then are switched into cordless mode when you come into the reach of the cordless base in your home, or more likely in your office. This technology is mostly intended for offices.
There are low power GSM and CDMA base stations for indoors use, but only licensed cell phone operators are allowed to operate them. Also, you need very expensive telco gear to drive those. This technology is intended for very large office buildings and underground shopping malls etc. Not an option for the rest of us.
Also, note that just because your US cordless phone uses frequencies in the 900 MHz band doesn't mean it could talk to a GSM 900 MHz base station. The protocols are as different as it gets.
Jim Dixon, the creator of the Zaptel open source telephony interface used by Asterisk, is a licensed radio ham and he has created a PCI Radio Interface card and drivers for the Asterisk PBX.
http://www.zapatatelephony.org/app_rpt.html
This turns an Asterisk server into a radio repeater and radio/voip/pots gateway. In other words, you could build a radio network similar to the way you suggested (a base in every city) and hook them all up over VOIP.
However, you need to be a licensed radio ham to operate the transmitters.
How can my ORIGINAL post be redundant? Is it redundant because the response to my post was QUOTING me? Ever heard of QUOTATION MARKS?
Nobody has mentioned any of what my original post says before me. It may not be of interest to you, but one thing is absolutely certain: It is NOT REDUNDANT. You may want to learn the art of reading first, Mr.Moderator, you definitely have some catching up to do there.
It is both savings _and_ greater control. Which one of those two is more predominant for you depends on the way you are using the telephone.
Often people get interested mostly for the savings potential at first and only learn to appreciate the additional benefits once they got to use them for a while.
As far as savings go, you may ask how can Asterisk save more money than just another VOIP adapter or IP telephone that in the end may connect to the very same service?
The difference is that Asterisk can connect to multiple services at the same time and automatically pick the one with the best rate for any given call. It can also automatically pick another service if a given service has difficulties to complete a call. This increases the level of service but it also saves you money because if you have to make an important call when your provider can't complete that call, then you are less concerned about savings and more inclined to use some expensive POTS service.
Further, Asterisk generates a so called call detail record for every call you make. This can help you resolve billing disputes with your provider such as may arise when there are many dropped calls or calls that did never complete but showed up on your bill anyway.
Last but not least, Asterisk can save you money by providing a free "inhouse" VOIP service to your friends and family. You never have to pay a dime again talking to friends and family on your private network.
When it comes to more control and additional features you never knew you wanted, you may ask why you would need those.
You may want to think of Asterisk as the telephone equivalent of your own mail server/web server/router combo. You don't necessarily have to have one as you could connect your PC directly to the DSL or cable modem or whatever other device delivers your broadband service and then use the services your provider offers, but if you have your own, there are quite a few benefits.
You can share the connection amongst multiple devices and you can do things which your service provider either charges you for or won't offer the way you want it or perhaps won't offer at all.
Asterisk does the same for you in respect of telephone services. You can have multiple phones in your house or elsewhere sharing the services Asterisk is connected to, you can use features you would have to pay the phone company for and you can use features the phone company doesn't even offer.
One of those things that your phone company cannot offer you is becoming fairly independent of location. If you are frequently in different places, like visiting your parents or in laws, or spend time in a weekend cottage, travel on business etc, Asterisk extends the reach of your home's or office's phone line. As long as you have a suitable internet connection where you are, you can use your own phone line at home or in your office to receive and make phone calls while you are away.
I tend to think that one day every household will have a device like Asterisk in the form of a small affordable appliance and most phone calls will go directly from one household to another over the net without phone companies involved at all.
You can already get a taste of that with Asterisk today. There are two technologies available today which translate ordinary telephone numbers into IP addresses and Asterisk has support for both.
One is called ENUM which uses a service record in the DNS to point a calling device to the called device much like how an email client finds a recipient. You can register your POTS phone number at E164.org and have it point to your Asterisk server. Other people with Asterisk servers who call you on your POTS phone number will then automatically be routed from Asterisk to Asterisk over the net bypassing the phone companies.
The other is called DUNDi, short for distributed universal number discovery. This is a lot like ENUM, but the mechanism is distributed which avoids the need for a central database. The effect is the same: if the number of the party you are calling can be discovered, the call will go over the net bypassing the phone companies.
in my book that would fall under fighting VOIP and ultimately lead to some underground system that wipes them out for good.
As an example you might want to consider p2p filesharing. I remember when Napster was being sued, the word was "be careful what you wish for -- you're only grooming a new generation of distributed p2p that you can't fight in court" and this is precisely what happened.
The more efficiently traditional telcos try to fight or contain VOIP, the more efficient their foes will become in defeating them.
Consequently my conclusion is the only way for telcos to survive is to embrace the new without trying tricks to contain it.
In other words, it is not so much about what technology they use, it's more about _how_ they use it.
Slashdot Mirror
To me all this looks suspiciously like the long drawn out but failing efforts to revive the Amiga OS.
I am all for work, research and development of alternative OS technologies, but it should be obvious by now that there is no way a new OS can can become successful in this day and age unless it is based on open source.
Even SUN had to learn this lesson the hard way. If they couldn't make Solaris take off against Windows in the x86 space, how much chance do companies like Yellow Tab or Hyperion (AmigaOS) have?
Wouldn't it be better to support the open source Haiku OS project and then make money on something built on top of that?
As I understand it, one of the more useful applications envisaged for the technique is not to find out what the actual weight of a given molecule is, but to detect the presence of a particular molecule, such as certain proteins which are present in blood in the very early stages of cancer and which are very difficult to detect with today's methods.
You're mistaken. NeXT always had it's own windowing system which was based on Display Postscript (DPS). It was NOT based on the X Window System.
...
from Wikipedia
"The developers of NeXT wrote a completely new windowing engine to take full advantage of NeXT's object oriented operating system. A number of commands were added to DPS to actually create the windows and to react to events, similar to but simpler than NeWS..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript
It would seem you totally got the wrong idea what my post was all about. In no event would I encourage anyone to steal code. My message was and still is this ...
... those who want OSX technologies on x86 have it pretty good. Apple have made their core OS available as open source and there is even a binary installation kit for x86. In addition, their primary API is based on an open standard, OPENSTEP, for which there is an open source implementation, even including development tools that are comparable to Apple's. If anybody wants to roll their own, they don't have to start from scratch, they can jump right in and contribute towards completing any missing bits.
e r/GNUstep/README.Darwin
Don't expect Apple to provide a free lunch. Instead, if you want to have a meal that's not on the menu, go to another restaurant or stay at home and cook for yourself.
Let me say this once again
Instead of fantasising about stealing Apple's code, jokingly or not, you should rather be grateful that Apple has made it fairly straightforward for anyone committed enough to use and replicate OSX technologies on other platforms if they wish.
So, by all means, I encourage you, go ahead, install Darwin x86 and GNUstep on your PC and contribute to the project.
http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Us
Sure, this means you have to do some work and I agree it would be nice if there was an ISO CD image from which x86 PC owners could install both Darwin x86 and GNUstep all in one go so they could more easily give this a try and perhaps become supporters of the project. Then again, there is nothing that stops you or anyone else from building such an ISO CD image and make it available.
You can do this already with Asterisk
c hannels
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-Asterisk+Bluetooth+
Asterisk runs on OSX, though I am not sure if anybody has tried the BT channel modules with Asterisk on OSX yet.
"wouldnt it be nice it they made OSX for a x86"
...
But they do, they just don't sell it.
In an interview last year, an Apple executive confirmed that an x86 port of OSX, aka Marklar does exist in Apple's labs and that they are keeping it on par with PPC development.
Before the release of the G5, Steve Jobs said in another interview that they do not plan to move to x86 but that they like to keep their options open.
If you take these two statements and add one and one together, it should become obvious that they have no intent to change their business model from making and selling "hardware including software" to "software including hardware" or even "software only". In other words, Marklar is just an insurance policy against unpredictable disaster scenarios where Apple would be forced to move to another CPU and as a result, Apple have a stronger negotiating position with IBM.
Consequently, for as long as IBM do a good job on fostering PPC, for as long as PPC is competitive, Apple have very little reason to move.
And should they ever decide to move, or should they decide to offer OSX on x86 in addition to PPC, their business model will almost certainly remain the same, meaning OSX will continue to be made to run on Apple hardware only, regardless of CPU compatibility.
So, you would then see an x86 Mac with exactly the same treats as today, from OpenFirmware to Apple's own motherboard designs, not compatible with other x86 hardware. In fact, such an x86 Mac might even have a custom x86 CPU, made only for Apple, ie bolted on AltiVec compatible SIMD. Without specific hacks, OSX would not run on other x86 machines. Likewise, Windows would probably not run on such an x86 Mac without some extra software from Microsoft, eg. Virtual PC or Mac/x86. Such an arrangement would also likely have Microsoft continue MS-Office development for the Mac - even more reason for Apple to choose such a path if they ever were to go x86.
So, whether or not Apple will release OSX on x86, if you want OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware, you will almost certainly have to rig your own.
Mind you, you can do this within limits already today. Darwin, the core of OSX, is available for x86 and it's a free download
http://www.opendarwin.org/en/downloads
You can get GNUstep and run it on top of Darwin x86
http://www.gnustep.org
GNUstep is the GNU implementation of OPENSTEP, the foundation on which Cocoa is build. In addition, GNUstep has some, but not all of the things Apple has added, so you get Cocoa compatibility within limits. This is as close as you can get OSX on x86 today. It's free, but it requires a little more effort than an OSX installation on a Mac. And if you want the OSX eye candy, you will also need to do a bit of DIY. If you do, consider becoming a contributor to the GNUstep project.
Thus, it comes down to paying a little extra for convenience or save some money and put in some work. You can't have it both ways. Remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I'd recommend you don't waste your time with Carbon, which is the API associated with legacy support. Learn Cocoa instead. Cocoa is the future.
u me ntation/index.html
e re ncelibrary/API_Fundamentals/Cocoa-fund-date.html
- dev
For learning Cocoa, the gold standard is Aaron Hillegass' "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X", Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-321-21314-9.
In addition, read Apple's online developer documentation. Just install the developer tools and then point your browser at
file:///Developer/ADC%20Reference%20Library/doc
The introductory stuff on Cocoa is at
file:///Developer/ADC%20Reference%20Library/ref
For resources check out
http://www.stepwise.com
and join the Cocoa Developer mailing list at
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa
other resource links, including book referrals, ar at
http://www.stepwise.com/StartingPoint/Cocoa.html
I wonder if it has never ocurred to anyone that if singularity does exist for a given form of intelligence, such as human intelligence, then there probably also exists a singularity for any other form of intelligence, such as the superseding superhuman intelligence.
...
...
In other words, every form of intelligence may have its own limits and thus its own singularity.
Where does this strange belief come from that once intelligence evolves into machine intelligence it will then continue as machine intelligence ad infitum?
Consider the following scenario
Humankind invents a machine that surpasses human intelligence. This machine intelligence advances itself to the point where it finds its own limits and it invents a purely biological machine to overcome those limits. A new superhuman but biological and thus once again human race is thus created and the whole cycle may start all over again.
Another scenario could be
Humankind invents a machine that surpasses human intelligence which in turn invents a new form of intelligence based neither on machinery nor on biology, but on something we can't even fathom, say radiation, gravity, whatever.
In any event, I am having difficulties to accept that just because you surpass one barrier, this automatically means that there are no further such barriers.
I tend to think that it is quite possible Microsoft may eventually go a similar route than Apple have gone with OSX and build a new operating system on top of some *nix flavour. By 2015, Windows will most likely still be what you would expect Windows to look and feel like, but it may be an evolved .NET and Avalon/Aero on top of a *nix core with a POSIX API and a legacy Windows API for backwards compatibility.
Microsoft may step in and purchase SCO's software assets when SCO goes into liquidation and then use that as a base for their own *nix.
It is also possible that they eventually overcome their stubborn views on open source and use BSD to do their own *nix, released under some half hearted open source license that doesn't quite fit the requirements of what is commonly accepted as an open source license but still goes much further than their shared source thing today.
There are quite a number of reasons why they might do this. For one, it would allow them to do better in the PR battle. They could then say "Look, we are doing open source, too." and many parties, ie governments, anti-trust agencies, courts etc would just buy this regardless of how poor their license may be.
Another benefit for Microsoft would be that they don't have to spend as much effort on reinventing the wheel. If they have a POSIX compliant *nix core, they can take advantage of all the OSS code that's out there which now they often have to replicate. Yes, they want to dominate the market and use their OS as a leverage to do so, but they may just realise that in order to dominate, it is sufficient to dominate the most important APIs.
In my opinion, the battle over OSes will shift to a battle over APIs in the not so distant future. As APIs will become more important, the underlying core OS will become less of an issue, it may just become a commodity.
To illustrate this, consider the following scenario: Imagine, for argument's sake that GNUstep (http://www.gnustep.org) was to mature significant enough to take off and attract more and more application developers, first on top of Linux and BSD, later Solaris and eventually taking hold of Windows. Imagine, somehow the balance on Windows application development was to shift to OPENSTEP/GNUstep. This would allow developers to write applications that would run unmodified on all major desktop platforms. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but if it was to happen, the effect would be that Microsoft would lose most if not all of the leverage they have right now.
Microsoft know this and that is why they fought such a bitter war with SUN Microsystems over Java on Windows, eventually abandoning Java and rolling their own.
All this goes to show that the APIs are more important for dominance than the underlying OS core and as a result, the OS core is therefore likely to become a commodity eventually. By 2015, the battle over OSes as we know them may have long become a thing of the past and the battle over APIs may be on.
The warning that an executable is being launched for the first time is standard on MacOS X for _any_ executable. The warning is initiated by the OS, not the executable itself. It thus applies to _every_ program indeed.
If you haven't seen this, then you either haven't launched any new applications since this feature was introduced, or you are running an older version of OSX. I can't tell you exactly when this was introduced, but it has been around for a while now - my best guess would be sometime between 10.3.3 and 10.3.7.
As far as your assertion of "stupid users" who will click on anything and proceed regardless of how many warnings they are being given, is concerned I tend to think that it is not the "stupidity" of users but the presentation of alerts by the OS which makes a big difference.
Remember that there have been attempts of trojans for OSX not so long ago and they didn't cause a major impact. I seem to remember that only one person reported to have launched a hostile script and getting hit as a result.
In my opinion the way the alerts are being presented makes a big difference. I believe that Microsoft could improve the security of Windows users significantly if only they worked out how to properly alert people, how to design alerts in such a way that even lazy folks who always click through will have to stop and think before they click.
If somebody succeeds, the news would be so big, Apple would likely react within hours and release a security update to fix the vulnerability. They have a pretty good track record dealing with vulnerabilities when they have become known and Mac users appear to be taking security updates very seriously. Not many will neglect to apply a security update certainly not if news of a successful attack have been all over the media. The end result would be an even more secure OS and even less incentive for attackers to target the Mac platform.
Sending an executable as a mail attachment is easy, but fooling a user into launching is is much harder on the Mac than it is on Windows.
Unlike Windows, the MacOS uses filesystem embedded filetype and resource fork information to determine what kind of file a file is. You can't just change the filename into photo.jpg or letter.doc to make the attachment look like a photo or a word document. If it is an executable, the Mac will show it as such.
This means you will have to convince the user that the ececutable in question comes from a trusted source and that it is safe to launch. Even then, MacOS X will open a dialog that explains to the user that this is the first time this application is about to be launched, that it might be dangerous and then ask if the user wants to proceed. At that point most Mac users will cancel if they are not sure what this application is and where it came from.
But even if they proceed to launch the application, then the application still won't be able to install anything on the user's machine. If it tries to do that, the user will again be notified that some software is about to be installed and that an administrator password is required to do so.
Somebody would have to be incredibly naive to ignore all the warnings and still proceed.
This type of attack is rather unlikely to be successful in causing a spreading of the trojan. The propagation mechanism is far too weak. The news about such an attack will be all over the net before the trojan had a chance to propagate.
If anybody is to succeed with an attack against the Mac, it would have to be an exploit of some security flaw in the OS or in a privileged application.
You are greatly mistaken.
The IPA is a Japanese government agency and as such every bit as bureaucratic as anything else going in Japan Inc.
I know of quite a number of cases where the IPA has turned down to fund interesting open source projects, the kind of projects most Slashdot readers would be very much in favour of.
If you are a small or medium sized business in Japan and you want money from the IPA's program to develop open source, you have to go through a lot of hoops to actually get funded. Most of the money the government has alotted for this progeam isn't spent and it is not for lack of applicants.
If you do decide to apply, you have to prepare an application that most SMEs won't have the expertise to do. They will need to spend $$$ on ex-government officials turned consultants to prepare the application for them.
Then if you do get invited to present your application at the IPA, you will find yourself with 3 or 4 employees of your company in a room with about 15 to 20 Japanese government officials, every one of whom will ask questions that are pretty humiliating for small and medium sized companies.
The tenor is pretty much like "Who the heck are you guys? Is three people all you can muster? How big is your company? Have you done this before? Have you got any backing by big corporations with recognised names and brands?"
The smaller your company, the more likely your application will be judged not on its own merits but on prejudice against anything small and without a big name.
The IPA program may look different on the outset but under the surface it is just the same old way of Japan Inc.
With all due respect, you are talking nonsense.
First, the IPA does not expressly support Linux. Its progam is to further the use of open source software in Japan. And in fact you will find that many government sponsored research projects in Japan are based on BSD and not Linux. A prominent example is the KAME project (IPsec and IPv6).
Second, Apple has embraced open source software and it is supporting and contributing to open source projects. Some of the work Apple is contributing directly supports otherwise Linux centric projects, for example KHTML.
Also, it should not be forgotten that Apple sponsored and contributed most of the work on MkLinux. In any event, the impression you try to create with your wording, that Apple is in one boat with Microsoft in resisting open source is nothing more than spin.
When Einstein found that according to his mathematical models, the universe was expanding, he didn't think this made any sense and so he invented the cosmological constant to his formulas to neutralise the expansion of the universe.
When applying the "correction" the universe appeared to be standing still and everything was hunky dory, at least until many many years later when evidence was mounting that the universe was indeed expanding.
Einstein then called the cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life.
Apparently, his formulas were more trustworthy than even he himself was willing to believe.
With Cable Internet services the Cable TV operator is the only internet service provider on the cable network and no other provider has any right to gain access to that network providing their own service.
With DSL services the situation is different. Internel service providers have the right to get access to the telco's network to provide their own service over DSL in competition with the telco that owns the wires.
The telcos would like to get the same monopoly status that cable operators have. Internet service providers would like to get the same access right to cable networks that they have to telco's DSL networks.
The FCC has tried to argue that there is a difference between cable and DSL that justifies the difference in access rights. Not everybody agrees with that view and so the issue went to the courts.
You seem to assume that Apple will rest on their laurels. Recent additions include such things as core image and core video which is quite a leap forward.
www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/coreimage.html
Also, it's not just about how things appear on screen, but how it all works underneath and also how it is being used by application developers.
What gives OSX a lead in the GUI department is the Cocoa Framework and programming model, associated development tools and consistent use of interface design guidelines.
I wouldn't consider Linux to be catching up to OSX in the GUI space _unless_ GNUstep becomes more mature, gets a more modern appearance and is going to be widely and consistently used for application development on Linux.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to praise Apple here. After all, this technology came from NeXT and was at some point in time co-developed with SUN. Apple were just extremely lucky that NeXT saved their butts with this awesome technology.
Let's be honest, compared to other Unix windowing systems such as NEWS and OPENSTEP, X11 is archaic. It's bad enough that NEWS didn't catch on as a standard. Hopefully GNUstep will become more mature and finally take off, now that it is nearing a 1.0 release.
http://www.gnustep.org
That's not such a good idea. The numbers will eventually leak out and then those call centres will get overwhelmed with prank calls via gateways overseas or other routes where the caller ID is stripped off and the caller cannot easily be traced back.
If you do give VOIP providers access to those call centres, then you do it by setting up a direct link between the VOIP provider's switches and the call centre. This could be done through PSTN circuits or by setting up a VPN between the VOIP provider and the call centre and a VOIP/Trunk gateway at the call centre PBX.
The problem of connectivity is however not a technical one. There are hundreds of VOIP providers and connecting them all requires some coordinated effort or it will be a big mess.
2. Embed GPS chips in black box VOIP boxes and configure them to send location information when 911 is dialed
That would still require a major integration effort to make sense of the location coordinates in order to send them to the correct 911 call centre and to translate them into human readable address for the 911 operator.
Still, neither can you expect this to be present in every VOIP device, nor can you be sure it will work all the time, especially since you are unlikely to get GPS readings inside buildings when the phone is not located close to the window. You got to have a backup for those cases where GPS isn't present or doesn't work.
3. Require VOIP providers to ask customers the expected physical location of their VOIP phone so that 911 will work when there is no GPS data
4. Require that VOIP providers inform customers that 911 will go to this location if they move their phone
5. Require VOIP providers to allow users to change this location easily either through their phone, or a web interface
6. Require VOIP providers to ask the "where is your phone" question again if other customer information like billing address changes
If you rely on manual updates, people will forget to update, so this is no different from putting warnings on your website informing customers that they ought to do this or that in order to make sure that 911 will work properly.
Also, you seem to forget that VOIP devices are already used in a mobile fashion. Analog telephone adapters such as the Grandstream HandyTone series or the Digium IAXy are specifically designed for travel. You take them with you and plug them in wherever you have an internet connection. There are also software VOIP phones such as Firefly or X-Lite which run on notebook computers and they can connect to just about any VOIP service provider there is with the exception of Skype which is a closed system. Last but not least, there are more and more WiFi VOIP phones coming onto the market and quite possibly this is where the entire VOIP device market will move to. So how are you going to keep track of the location of all those portable/mobile devices? The answer is you can't.
For a simple solution, at least for the time being, major VOIP providers such as Vonage may want to look at how 911 service is handled by mobile phone companies in various countries. In the UK for example, each mobile phone operator has its own emergency call center. If you dial 999 (the UK equivalent of 911) on a mobile phone in the UK, you don't get connected to the police directly. Instead, you get connected to an operator in the mobile phone company's call centre and they ask you what kind of assistance you require. They can also see what your mobile phone number is and which area you are in. They will then bridge your call into a conference call with the appropriate emergency call centre and announce your number and location to the emergency services operator. Once the link is established and you are talking to the emergency services operator directly, the operator of the mobile phone company will drop out of the conference.
This is a proven system which could be adapted for us
Linus himself has been on public record at multiple occasions saying that "operating system code is nothing that is invented and that he is not an inventor.
What you are looking for is a dual mode cell/cordless phone and a corresponding base station. Such things exist but they are not cheap. Typical combinations are GSM/DECT (European cordless) and GSM/PHS (Japanese cordless).
The phones then are switched into cordless mode when you come into the reach of the cordless base in your home, or more likely in your office. This technology is mostly intended for offices.
There are low power GSM and CDMA base stations for indoors use, but only licensed cell phone operators are allowed to operate them. Also, you need very expensive telco gear to drive those. This technology is intended for very large office buildings and underground shopping malls etc. Not an option for the rest of us.
Also, note that just because your US cordless phone uses frequencies in the 900 MHz band doesn't mean it could talk to a GSM 900 MHz base station. The protocols are as different as it gets.
Forgot to mention, such a network already exists
http://www.allstarlink.org
Jim Dixon, the creator of the Zaptel open source telephony interface used by Asterisk, is a licensed radio ham and he has created a PCI Radio Interface card and drivers for the Asterisk PBX.
http://www.zapatatelephony.org/app_rpt.html
This turns an Asterisk server into a radio repeater and radio/voip/pots gateway. In other words, you could build a radio network similar to the way you suggested (a base in every city) and hook them all up over VOIP.
However, you need to be a licensed radio ham to operate the transmitters.
How can my ORIGINAL post be redundant? Is it redundant because the response to my post was QUOTING me? Ever heard of QUOTATION MARKS?
Nobody has mentioned any of what my original post says before me. It may not be of interest to you, but one thing is absolutely certain: It is NOT REDUNDANT. You may want to learn the art of reading first, Mr.Moderator, you definitely have some catching up to do there.
It is both savings _and_ greater control. Which one of those two is more predominant for you depends on the way you are using the telephone.
Often people get interested mostly for the savings potential at first and only learn to appreciate the additional benefits once they got to use them for a while.
As far as savings go, you may ask how can Asterisk save more money than just another VOIP adapter or IP telephone that in the end may connect to the very same service?
The difference is that Asterisk can connect to multiple services at the same time and automatically pick the one with the best rate for any given call. It can also automatically pick another service if a given service has difficulties to complete a call. This increases the level of service but it also saves you money because if you have to make an important call when your provider can't complete that call, then you are less concerned about savings and more inclined to use some expensive POTS service.
Further, Asterisk generates a so called call detail record for every call you make. This can help you resolve billing disputes with your provider such as may arise when there are many dropped calls or calls that did never complete but showed up on your bill anyway.
Last but not least, Asterisk can save you money by providing a free "inhouse" VOIP service to your friends and family. You never have to pay a dime again talking to friends and family on your private network.
When it comes to more control and additional features you never knew you wanted, you may ask why you would need those.
You may want to think of Asterisk as the telephone equivalent of your own mail server/web server/router combo. You don't necessarily have to have one as you could connect your PC directly to the DSL or cable modem or whatever other device delivers your broadband service and then use the services your provider offers, but if you have your own, there are quite a few benefits.
You can share the connection amongst multiple devices and you can do things which your service provider either charges you for or won't offer the way you want it or perhaps won't offer at all.
Asterisk does the same for you in respect of telephone services. You can have multiple phones in your house or elsewhere sharing the services Asterisk is connected to, you can use features you would have to pay the phone company for and you can use features the phone company doesn't even offer.
One of those things that your phone company cannot offer you is becoming fairly independent of location. If you are frequently in different places, like visiting your parents or in laws, or spend time in a weekend cottage, travel on business etc, Asterisk extends the reach of your home's or office's phone line. As long as you have a suitable internet connection where you are, you can use your own phone line at home or in your office to receive and make phone calls while you are away.
I tend to think that one day every household will have a device like Asterisk in the form of a small affordable appliance and most phone calls will go directly from one household to another over the net without phone companies involved at all.
You can already get a taste of that with Asterisk today. There are two technologies available today which translate ordinary telephone numbers into IP addresses and Asterisk has support for both.
One is called ENUM which uses a service record in the DNS to point a calling device to the called device much like how an email client finds a recipient. You can register your POTS phone number at E164.org and have it point to your Asterisk server. Other people with Asterisk servers who call you on your POTS phone number will then automatically be routed from Asterisk to Asterisk over the net bypassing the phone companies.
The other is called DUNDi, short for distributed universal number discovery. This is a lot like ENUM, but the mechanism is distributed which avoids the need for a central database. The effect is the same: if the number of the party you are calling can be discovered, the call will go over the net bypassing the phone companies.
in my book that would fall under fighting VOIP and ultimately lead to some underground system that wipes them out for good.
As an example you might want to consider p2p filesharing. I remember when Napster was being sued, the word was "be careful what you wish for -- you're only grooming a new generation of distributed p2p that you can't fight in court" and this is precisely what happened.
The more efficiently traditional telcos try to fight or contain VOIP, the more efficient their foes will become in defeating them.
Consequently my conclusion is the only way for telcos to survive is to embrace the new without trying tricks to contain it.
In other words, it is not so much about what technology they use, it's more about _how_ they use it.