Doesn't it sound like human error? They say a faulty order was entered onto the system and they don't know who caused it... it's easy to blame the computer rather than have the world hate you...
This is a bad, self-serving article
on
WiFi Woes With .11g
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This article doesn't deserve to be promoted on/., and besides is old news anyway.
The main aim of the article seems to be to try to boost the author's own credibility by making it look as if his previous 802.11g pessimism was prescient. But the author is really trying to stretch the facts to fit his premise; he's not making a useful report.
He says of the release of pre-standard agreement 802.11g devices: "As predicted, the result is a monumental cockup"
Monumental cockup? Hardly. These devices work pretty well and manufacturers such as Apple are open about the fact that the standard is still in draft form - and have stated they will release firmware updates to bring their products in line with the final specification when agreed.
What this article actually gives us is a load of FUD about 802.11g, even quoting a Gartner analyst for a 'techincal' explanation!
It makes you wonder if this guy's got friends in the 802.11a camp...
How long would it take to creep up the ribbon into space anyway? The climber doesn't look very aerodynamically efficient and is only working on a traction system - how long will it take to travel 62,000 miles!?
Also, even if the ribbon itself is kept tense by centrifugal force (enough to withstand stormy weather and planes crashing into it), wouldn't the climber itself be particularly vulnerable in high winds? It's going to need a lot of grip.
Why is/. posting this tripe? This has been available for ages on the Mac - with PowerWindows on OS 8.x (i.e. 1996-7 if I remember properly), and on Mac OS X since it came out. OS X users - go and get yourselves a copy of WindowShade X - not only can you combine the old minimise-in-place windowshade feature of OS 9 and before with the Dock minimisation, but you can set any window to your chosen degree of translucency at will. Find it on Versiontracker. Then understand why this news story is a waste of time. Mac OS X's graphics system has a far more powerful compositing architecture to WinXP - let's focus on the real news.
This is rubbish. How did they get iComp to run on a G4? What compiler did they use, what OS was it running on? At what angle was the playing field set?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Mac-basher. But even I, an avid Apple fan, can see that this is a flawed comparison. I'm not saying the G4 is over- or under- rated here, just that it's got no credibility with no methodology published. I can't believe this made it onto the/. front page...
What self-respecting *CPU* comparison site would refer to an entire machine as a CPU?
>Has Apple learned anything from A/UX? Perhaps. But they likely forgot it.
Hmm.... I think you are missing the point by a long way here. The major difference in this case is that this is not 'Unix with a graphical interface', but the next version of MacOS, which happens to be built on a BSD-like base. In other words, it's not a half-hearted attempt at a second OS to handle servers where the primary OS would be inadequate - it's the primary platform for the Mac community. There will be no choice about upgrading to MacOS X, once it has taken pride of place on every shipping Mac.
What's Open Source got to do with it? Granted, Apple are jumping on the bandwagon a bit with Darwin, but they hardly depend on it for their OS development! It is only in this latest DP release that they have used the Darwin kernel. Why on earth would they not be able to support their product? Their head of technology wrote the Mach kernel in the first place. It's like saying Microsoft can't support Windows. Oh, hang on... no you must be right after all...
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it sound like human error? They say a faulty order was entered onto the system and they don't know who caused it... it's easy to blame the computer rather than have the world hate you...
This article doesn't deserve to be promoted on /., and besides is old news anyway.
The main aim of the article seems to be to try to boost the author's own credibility by making it look as if his previous 802.11g pessimism was prescient. But the author is really trying to stretch the facts to fit his premise; he's not making a useful report.
He says of the release of pre-standard agreement 802.11g devices: "As predicted, the result is a monumental cockup"
Monumental cockup? Hardly. These devices work pretty well and manufacturers such as Apple are open about the fact that the standard is still in draft form - and have stated they will release firmware updates to bring their products in line with the final specification when agreed.
What this article actually gives us is a load of FUD about 802.11g, even quoting a Gartner analyst for a 'techincal'
explanation!
It makes you wonder if this guy's got friends in the 802.11a camp...
How long would it take to creep up the ribbon into space anyway? The climber doesn't look very aerodynamically efficient and is only working on a traction system - how long will it take to travel 62,000 miles!?
Also, even if the ribbon itself is kept tense by centrifugal force (enough to withstand stormy weather and planes crashing into it), wouldn't the climber itself be particularly vulnerable in high winds? It's going to need a lot of grip.
Why is /. posting this tripe? This has been available for ages on the Mac - with PowerWindows on OS 8.x (i.e. 1996-7 if I remember properly), and on Mac OS X since it came out. OS X users - go and get yourselves a copy of WindowShade X - not only can you combine the old minimise-in-place windowshade feature of OS 9 and before with the Dock minimisation, but you can set any window to your chosen degree of translucency at will. Find it on Versiontracker. Then understand why this news story is a waste of time. Mac OS X's graphics system has a far more powerful compositing architecture to WinXP - let's focus on the real news.
This is rubbish. How did they get iComp to run on a G4? What compiler did they use, what OS was it running on? At what angle was the playing field set? Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Mac-basher. But even I, an avid Apple fan, can see that this is a flawed comparison. I'm not saying the G4 is over- or under- rated here, just that it's got no credibility with no methodology published. I can't believe this made it onto the /. front page...
What self-respecting *CPU* comparison site would refer to an entire machine as a CPU?
Err... 20K-100K hits per *DAY*? That's just over 1 a second tops... Apache on Linux can handle 50 times that without breaking a sweat...
Hmm.... I think you are missing the point by a long way here. The major difference in this case is that this is not 'Unix with a graphical interface', but the next version of MacOS, which happens to be built on a BSD-like base. In other words, it's not a half-hearted attempt at a second OS to handle servers where the primary OS would be inadequate - it's the primary platform for the Mac community. There will be no choice about upgrading to MacOS X, once it has taken pride of place on every shipping Mac.
What's Open Source got to do with it? Granted, Apple are jumping on the bandwagon a bit with Darwin, but they hardly depend on it for their OS development! It is only in this latest DP release that they have used the Darwin kernel. Why on earth would they not be able to support their product? Their head of technology wrote the Mach kernel in the first place. It's like saying Microsoft can't support Windows. Oh, hang on... no you must be right after all...