The people who are interested in say 'look at alternatives to windows' are unwilling to do the WORK to benchmark the alternatives. And, few of the people who shout 'alternative' mean 'alternatives', they mean 'their OS of choice'.
1) Design what/how will be tested.
2) Create an ISO such that you can place it into the machines on a network so you can pump HTTP queries at the box under test. Transfer the info back to a central logging box.
By making the process OPEN and able to be done by nothing more than burning a CD, and them booting that CD (Thus not needing a install/reinstall) others will be willing to take a weekend at work and DO benchmarking.
At the end of day, won't the Linux camp be suprised that not only will Micro$oft beat them in some situations, but BSD also beats them in more situations.
Exactly. BSD is the favorite OS of the porn industry for a reason. BSD works.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy tying to justify Linux, you'd go and search what OTHER SITES running your load are doing. (BSD is open source, even if Red Hat claims they are responsible for Open Source)
Take the time to e-mail the sys-admins....hell, call them on the phone. Most Sysadmins are happy to tell you about their victories over the machines.
>But when the leader gets arrogant and starts taking credit where credit is NOT due (a la microsoft), it might be time to take them out.
Then what about all the articles that are Pro-Linux and are written with a tone that, without Linux there would be no open source, or the only open source OS is linux, or calling companies to task when they call themselfs an Open Source Research Lab and the only thing the do is linux.
If you are unwilling to smack down the other wrong usage, don't be suprised when things like this happen.
Mr Petreley has a history of anything BUT Microsoft for years. OS/2, and now Linux.
Also note the spin of the article and./ headder.
"It's currently fashionable to bash Sun Microsystems. But open-source advocates have much to be thankful for when it comes to Sun."
How about "the open source development labs"....it is not about Open Source, but instead Linux.
The article is about Linux and how Sun is playing with Linux. No where is he talking about the BIGGER view of OpenSource, but of the smaller part of it....Linux.
If your adjenda is Linux....fine. Open Source is about *MORE* than just linux, and if you are willing to invoke the inclusive nature of Open Source, and then only talk about Linux aren't you helping to set up in the minds of others that OpenSource==Linux, rather than the reality that Open Source is MORE than Linux?
All of these things are 'obvious', once you see them, yet, should they have not had a patent?
1) Placing air in a bag to act as cushion for shipping stuff. (Sealed air corp 5254074/5339602)
2) placing carbon on cardboard and using a cardboard from to ship interface cards. (adaptec)
3) intermittent windsheild wipers.
You are required to submit prior art in the patent process. Seeing a cost assigned to NOT doing proper prior art citations (ie, big ass fines, settlements, etc) would do more to make sure the patent officials would have correct information than anything else.
Right now, what is your loss if you don't submitt complete information?
The only obligations Apple are under is one issued by a judge that they opt NOT to appeal. If they make choices that no one wants to buy, the shareholders might sue.
If Apple chooses to not make their OS run on X86 op-code machines (although at one time this was the goal, and people outside of Apple have DR2 for X86 and (of course) NeXTSTEP which shows they have the 'technology' to do it) it is thier choice.
And, if the marketplace takes the emulation.com's POV that they are being slapped about by Apple, there will be a defection to other platforms like Windows, BSD, BeOS and even linux.
On the Mac OS X server box, uname -a says Rhapsody. So, yes it *IS* Rhapsody....because uname gives you information about the system, including its name. If its name was Mac_OS_X, Darwin, or Jobs_my_God it would say that. Instead it says rhapsody.
I can understand your confusion, being mis-lead by Apple marketing.
Summary: It may be tossed out because of the RFC/standards process. (besides prior art)
From: Darren Reed
To: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Those turds over at (1$(0.
Someone has unfortunately brought to my attention the fact that certain
parts of NAT have been patented by the company which lovingly likes to
think it "runs the internet" (puke, spew, vomit). #5793763 patents a
complete implementation of what is essentially described in RFC 1631.
The patent was filed a whole 8 days prior to the first public release
(beta) of IPFilter with NAT.
If anyone can provide a legal opinion on whether or not that particular
patent would stand up in court, please let me know. That's legal opinions,
not personal opinions (they're dime a dozen). I'd be especially interested
to know of there are other NAT implemtenations which date back to prior to
that patent being filed and how complete they are/were.
And the non-legal reply:
From: Nigel Dyson-Hudson
To: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Those turds over at (1$(0.
folks,
Apparently you can not patent material from working with a standards body.
Dell was smacked down on this in 1996. You might want to look at what is
happening with RAMBUS memory, www.tomshardware.com has a number of
articles, since RAMBUS was a member of JEDC and has patented stuff from
those meetings.
So, if said company was anywhere near the RFC process, they would be trying
to patent stuff from an open standards body.
>>Otherwise, they lose my business, because I'm not buying their proprietary, overpriced hardware
>Troll. Name once peice of Apple hardware that is proprietary. Ummm, PCI, nope....AGP, nope....USB, Firewire, ATA SCSI.....nope nope nope.
Try ADB, Localtalk, NuBus.
How about Apple's lies to consumers over the years.
"Apple/// is a 5 year product."-Jobs 1st REAL attempt at hardware design was dead in 3
"Apple ][ forever." - Said because Apple wasn't selling enuf macs, and needed to milk the ][ users to fund the mac side. Forever is 12 years at Apple.
"The Newton is a very important part of our educational line-up." Said on March 4th 1998 at a national ed. show. (hint: 19980227 was the day Apple killed the Newton.
"All machines sold by Apple in 1997 will run Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
"We are committed to shipping a X86 version of Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
Pink, Copland, the list goes on an on.
Not a lie, but just pointing out Apple's desire to screw its customers:
"We are committed to high shareholder value" - Spindler in a press conference. Given Apple's position in the market as of that date...the only way to do that was to take as much money as you could from your customers.
Given Apple's past, the original poster isn't a troll. Perhaps not informed about how the new Apple hardware is configured.
Even *IF* you have a PPC, it may not run Mac OS X.
Gil said at WWDC 1997 that 'all PPC machines sold by Apple after this date will run Rhapsody.' And a release of a X86 version of rhapsody was promised.
Mac OS X Server said rhapsody when you did a uname -a.
Gil, speaking on behalf of Apple, made a public claim. Mr. Jobs went back on that corporate promise. And all that ever made it out of the x86 version of Rhapsody was DR2.
Mac OS X has had a few promises that were not delivered. But, hey that's no different than Micro$oft.
Re:Will Sun take over the suit against Mac?
on
Sun Buys Cobalt
·
· Score: 1
And you know this because WHY?
What is your source?
Perhaps Cobalt didn't think it is worth their time/effort.
>can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product
AND
>Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. T
Perhaps this is the problem with present bug-ridden Microsoft code. Are you still spending 3 man years per 8K of generated code? If you did, then your firm might actually have a product worth paying for, rather than the present low-level of quality Microsoft is famous for.
If this kind of thing excites you, consider co-generation with a sterling-cycle engine. With the external combustion option, you could power the heating with buringin cue:cat's
These people (jxj.com) are big into co-generation.
Co-generation on a small scale. 10% of the heat goes up the stack
What is the World coming to? No reports of BSD bashing, no one claming Linus dissed BSD in a public talk, no one coming up to the BSD booth and saying 'what are you doing at our show", no one stating their continued support of M$ software, due to the obvious satanic support of OpenSource.
>Then there's the fact that a great deal of GPL code is out there, and there have been reletivly few incidents thus far.
What you see are the incidents that someone got caught.
(warning RL anology!)
Given the large number of cars that drive everyday, and the few people who get speeding tickets, most cars must not violate the speed laws.
Larry Wall says humans are lazy. How many lazy/inept coders have taken GPLed code, cut and pasted it into their closed source projects? Just because you have few people caught, doesn't mean they do not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who are interested in say 'look at alternatives to windows' are unwilling to do the WORK to benchmark the alternatives. And, few of the people who shout 'alternative' mean 'alternatives', they mean 'their OS of choice'.
1) Design what/how will be tested.
2) Create an ISO such that you can place it into the machines on a network so you can pump HTTP queries at the box under test. Transfer the info back to a central logging box.
By making the process OPEN and able to be done by nothing more than burning a CD, and them booting that CD (Thus not needing a install/reinstall) others will be willing to take a weekend at work and DO benchmarking.
At the end of day, won't the Linux camp be suprised that not only will Micro$oft beat them in some situations, but BSD also beats them in more situations.
>Yes I run Porn
Exactly. BSD is the favorite OS of the porn industry for a reason. BSD works.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy tying to justify Linux, you'd go and search what OTHER SITES running your load are doing. (BSD is open source, even if Red Hat claims they are responsible for Open Source)
Take the time to e-mail the sys-admins....hell, call them on the phone. Most Sysadmins are happy to tell you about their victories over the machines.
How about having a child to keep a failing marriage together?
As an extra hand on the farm?
Someone to take care of YOU when you get old?
How about the common - Didn't pull out in time.
Are you willing to address these 'excellent reasons' for conception 1st?
>we can really take a look at what it means for everyone involved, the family, the children, and the human race...
If you gave a DAMN About the human race, you'd ask about overpopulation and resource consumption.
>But when the leader gets arrogant and starts taking credit where credit is NOT due (a la microsoft), it might be time to take them out.
Then what about all the articles that are Pro-Linux and are written with a tone that, without Linux there would be no open source, or the only open source OS is linux, or calling companies to task when they call themselfs an Open Source Research Lab and the only thing the do is linux.
If you are unwilling to smack down the other wrong usage, don't be suprised when things like this happen.
At $9K, it got delivered by an Apple Tech who would ALSO teach you how to use the machine.
A leather case for you pen and pencil set, leather CD holder, and a remote control.
12000 were made, 11601 sold. the rest are spare parts.
Mr Petreley has a history of anything BUT Microsoft for years. OS/2, and now Linux.
./ headder.
Also note the spin of the article and
"It's currently fashionable to bash Sun Microsystems. But open-source advocates have much to be thankful for when it comes to Sun."
How about "the open source development labs"....it is not about Open Source, but instead Linux.
The article is about Linux and how Sun is playing with Linux. No where is he talking about the BIGGER view of OpenSource, but of the smaller part of it....Linux.
If your adjenda is Linux....fine. Open Source is about *MORE* than just linux, and if you are willing to invoke the inclusive nature of Open Source, and then only talk about Linux aren't you helping to set up in the minds of others that OpenSource==Linux, rather than the reality that Open Source is MORE than Linux?
And, do you have a pointer to this 'lawsuit'?
I remember people talking about a POSSIBILITY of a lawsuit, but none were filed...
All of these things are 'obvious', once you see them, yet, should they have not had a patent?
1) Placing air in a bag to act as cushion for shipping stuff. (Sealed air corp 5254074/5339602)
2) placing carbon on cardboard and using a cardboard from to ship interface cards. (adaptec)
3) intermittent windsheild wipers.
You are required to submit prior art in the patent process. Seeing a cost assigned to NOT doing proper prior art citations (ie, big ass fines, settlements, etc) would do more to make sure the patent officials would have correct information than anything else.
Right now, what is your loss if you don't submitt complete information?
>Apple actually has good industrial design
Well, not really as good as it can be.
The Japaneese 'Good Design Award' was issued for the 20th Annv. Mac.
The iMac was submitted for the same award, and lost. The biggest reason the iMac lost? They cited the extra toxicty of the plastic used. (BPA).
Laugh all you want about wood (or leather in the case of the TAM), but it is less toxic.
The only obligations Apple are under is one issued by a judge that they opt NOT to appeal. If they make choices that no one wants to buy, the shareholders might sue.
If Apple chooses to not make their OS run on X86 op-code machines (although at one time this was the goal, and people outside of Apple have DR2 for X86 and (of course) NeXTSTEP which shows they have the 'technology' to do it) it is thier choice.
And, if the marketplace takes the emulation.com's POV that they are being slapped about by Apple, there will be a defection to other platforms like Windows, BSD, BeOS and even linux.
BZZZT! WRONG!
On the Mac OS X server box, uname -a says Rhapsody. So, yes it *IS* Rhapsody....because uname gives you information about the system, including its name. If its name was Mac_OS_X, Darwin, or Jobs_my_God it would say that. Instead it says rhapsody.
I can understand your confusion, being mis-lead by Apple marketing.
And Windows is differnt than NeXTSTEP/Rhapsody/FreeBSD.
Yet, FreeBSD, Rhapsody DR2, NeXTSTEP, Windows and BeOS all work on the X86 box I have.
Rhapsody -> Mac OS X has no excuse to run on X86, other than the 'vision' of Steve Jobs. DR2 proves that Mac OS X can be done on X86 boxes.
Just because an OS is different than another OS, that does *NOT* mean they can not run on the same hardware.
Summary: It may be tossed out because of the RFC/standards process. (besides prior art)
From: Darren Reed
To: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Those turds over at (1$(0.
Someone has unfortunately brought to my attention the fact that certain
parts of NAT have been patented by the company which lovingly likes to
think it "runs the internet" (puke, spew, vomit). #5793763 patents a
complete implementation of what is essentially described in RFC 1631.
The patent was filed a whole 8 days prior to the first public release
(beta) of IPFilter with NAT.
If anyone can provide a legal opinion on whether or not that particular
patent would stand up in court, please let me know. That's legal opinions,
not personal opinions (they're dime a dozen). I'd be especially interested
to know of there are other NAT implemtenations which date back to prior to
that patent being filed and how complete they are/were.
And the non-legal reply:
From: Nigel Dyson-Hudson
To: ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Those turds over at (1$(0.
folks,
Apparently you can not patent material from working with a standards body.
Dell was smacked down on this in 1996. You might want to look at what is
happening with RAMBUS memory, www.tomshardware.com has a number of
articles, since RAMBUS was a member of JEDC and has patented stuff from
those meetings.
So, if said company was anywhere near the RFC process, they would be trying
to patent stuff from an open standards body.
And Apple's version WAS not 'standard'.
(if you define standard as the MIT spec, or the TI trademark)
Overall throughput and bandwidth was limited.
Go research it for your own flaming, lazy ass.
Are you deyning that Gil, in the role of Apple CEO made that statement?
>>Otherwise, they lose my business, because I'm not buying their proprietary, overpriced hardware
/// is a 5 year product."-Jobs 1st REAL attempt at hardware design was dead in 3
>Troll. Name once peice of Apple hardware that is proprietary. Ummm, PCI, nope....AGP, nope....USB, Firewire, ATA SCSI.....nope nope nope.
Try ADB, Localtalk, NuBus.
How about Apple's lies to consumers over the years.
"Apple
"Apple ][ forever." - Said because Apple wasn't selling enuf macs, and needed to milk the ][ users to fund the mac side. Forever is 12 years at Apple.
"The Newton is a very important part of our educational line-up." Said on March 4th 1998 at a national ed. show. (hint: 19980227 was the day Apple killed the Newton.
"All machines sold by Apple in 1997 will run Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
"We are committed to shipping a X86 version of Rhapsody" - WWDC 1997
Pink, Copland, the list goes on an on.
Not a lie, but just pointing out Apple's desire to screw its customers:
"We are committed to high shareholder value" - Spindler in a press conference. Given Apple's position in the market as of that date...the only way to do that was to take as much money as you could from your customers.
Given Apple's past, the original poster isn't a troll. Perhaps not informed about how the new Apple hardware is configured.
Even *IF* you have a PPC, it may not run Mac OS X.
Gil said at WWDC 1997 that 'all PPC machines sold by Apple after this date will run Rhapsody.' And a release of a X86 version of rhapsody was promised.
Mac OS X Server said rhapsody when you did a uname -a.
Gil, speaking on behalf of Apple, made a public claim. Mr. Jobs went back on that corporate promise. And all that ever made it out of the x86 version of Rhapsody was DR2.
Mac OS X has had a few promises that were not delivered. But, hey that's no different than Micro$oft.
And you know this because WHY?
What is your source?
Perhaps Cobalt didn't think it is worth their time/effort.
Son, I remember when we moved to Mylar as the medium with paper tape was an advance.
>can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product
AND
>Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. T
Perhaps this is the problem with present bug-ridden Microsoft code. Are you still spending 3 man years per 8K of generated code? If you did, then your firm might actually have a product worth paying for, rather than the present low-level of quality Microsoft is famous for.
If you are into 'getting off the grid'
Home Power
If this kind of thing excites you, consider co-generation with a sterling-cycle engine. With the external combustion option, you could power the heating with buringin cue:cat's
These people (jxj.com) are big into co-generation.
Co-generation on a small scale. 10% of the heat goes up the stack
>And you can get a longer warranty than 6 months,
And, as I was told, not having Windows on the box voids the warranty.
(this may or may not be a fact)
Others have tried to get the specs on the camera interface, sony will not release it to people to write a driver for OpenSource OSes.
I'm not seeing why anyone is getting so excited.
What is the World coming to? No reports of BSD bashing, no one claming Linus dissed BSD in a public talk, no one coming up to the BSD booth and saying 'what are you doing at our show", no one stating their continued support of M$ software, due to the obvious satanic support of OpenSource.
What is the world coming to?
Nick is a Linux advocate. If the Open Source is not Linux, or installed on Linux, he wants nothing to do with them.
>Then there's the fact that a great deal of GPL code is out there, and there have been reletivly few incidents thus far.
What you see are the incidents that someone got caught.
(warning RL anology!)
Given the large number of cars that drive everyday, and the few people who get speeding tickets, most cars must not violate the speed laws.
Larry Wall says humans are lazy. How many lazy/inept coders have taken GPLed code, cut and pasted it into their closed source projects? Just because you have few people caught, doesn't mean they do not exist.