The big selling point of the Mac design concept (a closed box with no slots) was that the OPEN nature of the Apple I,][ and ][+ is why clones existed.
Jobs is the one that pushed for the closed Mac design.
>Sadly, the Apple ][+ itself fell prey to a Florida thunderstorm some years ago. You know...all the chips ARE socketed, and you could re-build it from scratch. Try THAT with a modern PC:-)
Trivia: Why did Franklin loose in court and had to stop making clones? Answer: Microsoft's BASIC was copied, and M$ is who stopped the clones.
In your mind, is it 'PC' to think of more than Linux when someone says OpenSource OS? (You have BSD, Cygnus, darwin(BSD-esque), HURD come to the top of my mind) If so, I make no appology for wanting the rising tide now refered to as OpenSource to float *ALL* boats. (Yes, even your dinghy.) I remember when this software was "code that you downloaded and compiled, with licencing terms which were favorable for reason X". Calling it OpenSource is eaiser, is more inclusive, AND has helped raise the profile over that long-winded name.
Or, do you have some other meaning for PC??? Because it sounds like you want to practice exclusion and not inclusion.
Re:Finally they get something out of the investmen
on
Apple's New Trackpad?
·
· Score: 1
>but you don't seem to know the facts. Jobs killed it because it was Amelio's project - the Newton died of chronic ego. read your history, gun-boy.
Ego YES
Gil's baby...NO!
Scully was VERY public that the Newton was HIS baby. And, given Scully is who got rid of Jobs, Jobs killed the project. That and it wasn't a NeXTSTEP or Mac.
The early Newton *DID* deserve the bad rap. 2.0/2.1 of Newton Intelligence were quite good. (It could understand MY handwriting...and I have trouble doing that some days!)
Re:Finally they get something out of the investmen
on
Apple's New Trackpad?
·
· Score: 1
Jobs managed to drive away most of the Newton engineers. They left in-mass for Palm Computing.
When Jobs stood up at WWDC and said: "Apple Makes Computers Right?" "Computers have keyboards, Right?" Jobs then help up a Newton and then said: "So what is this then?" This caused a few Newton Engineers to leave. When the spinoff was cancelled, thats when most left.
And, as I have heard it in the Newton newsgroups, the code was rather crufty, and convoluted. The only people who have a CHANCE of groking its fullness are now at Palm.
Getting the moderators blessing on/. is less much about being correct/insightful and more about fitting the adjenda of the moderators.
Think of it this way: At school, you got your best grades when your answer fit what the teacher wanted. And here at/., a large number of the moderators are not Pro-OpenSource, but are Pro-Linux. And, if you are not a Pro-Linux, Micro$oft bashing, GPL at all costs poster, you don't get positive moderation.
I don't see it as humorous, just hypocritcal. And a very human response.
The key is to grab all the other libaries and move them over.
And, the process *IS* documented in the freebsd mailing lists. How I did it is I looked at the old 1995 posts on how to get Solaris for X86 binaries running on FreeBSD and applied that methodology.
I was working on formal documantation on how do do it, when Steve Jobs took over and junked x86 Rhapsody. Given few would ever be able to use the work, it was scrapped.
The question: What OS do you run.... FreeBSD of course.
FreeBSD is a OpenSource OS with a licence that promotes the software to be used ANYWHERE, is stable and robust, and has a strong UNIX(tm) tradition.
Oh, and it can run Linux binaries, SCO binaries, Xenix binaries, and I've gotten mine to run Solaris X86 and Rhapsody DR1 binaries, with some tweaking.
(And on a more humorous note: Linux script kiddies come knocking but don't get in. It takes a BSD script kiddie to get in:-)
At one time, all the code was gone through line by line looking for problems. The default configuration comes with more bells/whitles turned on in a secure configuration.
Is that enought to declare an OS secure? Some people do.
Is OpenBSD more secure? As far as I am concerned, security begins with the person who is the SysAdm. And, if you are clueless, it won't matter WHAT OS you use.
But, if you don't know what you are doing, OpenBSD comes up in a mode with fewer chances to prove to the world you don't know what you are doing.
We have some non-technology issues that can wipe us out.
Overpopulation. Or, more like, the majority of the world wants to live like they see on Dyansty re-runs. And such a life is not sustainable for 6 billion people. Hell, 1/3 of the world doesn't even have electricity. Water. Yes, we have alot of water on this planet. But here's an example. Take the water volume of lake michigan. Pretend this is all the water in the world. A 5 gallon pail is all that is fresh. And an eyedropper full (no size of eyedropper was specified) is what is easly/cheaply obtained. Every SI chip, burger, and even you, needs good, clean water. And the clean water we can get is shrinking.
And, lets not forget things like EBOLA.
So, although run-away technology MIGHT kill us all, we have other issues to address also.
Dreamcast, dreamworks, what it boils down to is M$ has the money to buy ENOUGH influence at any company so they can get a peek inside at what they are doing and decide if they want to buy you out, or just bury you. (or put a horsehead in your bed)
What you are all forgetting is Bill wants to bring back Olympic Decathlon.
>When 99% of your software will compile and run on your system regardless of the distro that you use, what does it matter?
If you have source code and can't get it to 100%, there is a problem with the code.
What I see happening is a whole group of NEW coders coming up thru the ranks with 'Linux Experience' and have no CLUE about writing portable code. They write it going directly to/etc/passwd, and look for files in/usr, etc. Some mentoring of these young pups would be a good thing...if they will take the mentoring and they can find a mentor.
(that is problem #1)
Anytime money is involved, the dominate player doesn't want to do anything to take away their #1 position. The X86OPEN standard -> Linux standard binaries are examples of this. I have a hard time believing if the BSD's can run linux binaries, that you can't get all the Linux distros to all agree on a common format. Its all about being at the top of the pile and the money this represents.
This fighting for #1 is EXACTLY what fragmented the Unix market years ago. Every special enhancement to the 'linux kernel' will work to drive a wedge. There is nothing stopping someone from taking the kernel and doing their own fork. And if Linus never blesses the code back into his kernel, and the fork gets marketshare, this divide will contiune because the other vendors will be emboldened to create their own version. And as long as these forks all run 'linux standard binaries', the vast majority of the market won't care. Just like the market for shrink-wrapped Linux binaries won't care if the box is RedHat, SuSe, SCO, Solaris or BSD, so long as the box containing the binary at CompUSA and says 'works with Linux' works on whatever platform they have.
The cracks are already showing....and Linus sees it. That is why at LinuxWorld 2000 in NYC he called fragmentation a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to forget:
:-)
The big selling point of the Mac design concept (a closed box with no slots) was that the OPEN nature of the Apple I,][ and ][+ is why clones existed.
Jobs is the one that pushed for the closed Mac design.
>Sadly, the Apple ][+ itself fell prey to a Florida thunderstorm some years ago.
You know...all the chips ARE socketed, and you could re-build it from scratch. Try THAT with a modern PC
Trivia: Why did Franklin loose in court and had to stop making clones? Answer: Microsoft's BASIC was copied, and M$ is who stopped the clones.
And a few went to psion.
But 32 of them left enmass to Palm on a Friday. Within 2 weeks of the announcement of the cancellation of the spinoff.
> /. has gotten waaay more PC recently.
Eh? What *DO* you mean by PC?
In your mind, is it 'PC' to think of more than Linux when someone says OpenSource OS?
(You have BSD, Cygnus, darwin(BSD-esque), HURD come to the top of my mind) If so, I make no appology for wanting the rising tide now refered to as OpenSource to float *ALL* boats. (Yes, even your dinghy.) I remember when this software was "code that you downloaded and compiled, with licencing terms which were favorable for reason X". Calling it OpenSource is eaiser, is more inclusive, AND has helped raise the profile over that long-winded name.
Or, do you have some other meaning for PC??? Because it sounds like you want to practice exclusion and not inclusion.
Its a classic.
>but you don't seem to know the facts. Jobs killed it because it was Amelio's project - the Newton died of chronic ego. read your history, gun-boy.
Ego YES
Gil's baby...NO!
Scully was VERY public that the Newton was HIS baby. And, given Scully is who got rid of Jobs, Jobs killed the project. That and it wasn't a NeXTSTEP or Mac.
The early Newton *DID* deserve the bad rap. 2.0/2.1 of Newton Intelligence were quite good. (It could understand MY handwriting...and I have trouble doing that some days!)
>Of the almost 1000 people in the Newton
Eh? Got Proof on this one?
Jobs killed it because of his Ego.
Jobs managed to drive away most of the Newton engineers. They left in-mass for Palm Computing.
When Jobs stood up at WWDC and said:
"Apple Makes Computers Right?"
"Computers have keyboards, Right?"
Jobs then help up a Newton and then said:
"So what is this then?"
This caused a few Newton Engineers to leave. When the spinoff was cancelled, thats when most left.
And, as I have heard it in the Newton newsgroups, the code was rather crufty, and convoluted. The only people who have a CHANCE of groking its fullness are now at Palm.
Silly you.
The sweeeeet technology from Newton that Apple is re-using is the translucent plastic from the E-mate.
Steve can understand translucent plastic.
Getting the moderators blessing on /. is less much about being correct/insightful and more about fitting the adjenda of the moderators.
/., a large number of the moderators are not Pro-OpenSource, but are Pro-Linux. And, if you are not a Pro-Linux, Micro$oft bashing, GPL at all costs poster, you don't get positive moderation.
Think of it this way: At school, you got your best grades when your answer fit what the teacher wanted. And here at
I don't see it as humorous, just hypocritcal. And a very human response.
The key is to grab all the other libaries and move them over.
And, the process *IS* documented in the freebsd mailing lists. How I did it is I looked at the old 1995 posts on how to get Solaris for X86 binaries running on FreeBSD and applied that methodology.
I was working on formal documantation on how do do it, when Steve Jobs took over and junked x86 Rhapsody. Given few would ever be able to use the work, it was scrapped.
>Furthermore, the MORE unixes that exist, the more effort is being wasted, in redundant kernel code,
Then based on your feelings, why don't you advocate everyone use a BSD licence so ALL of the computers in the world can use that code?
The question: What OS do you run.... FreeBSD of course.
:-)
FreeBSD is a OpenSource OS with a licence that promotes the software to be used ANYWHERE, is stable and robust, and has a strong UNIX(tm) tradition.
Oh, and it can run Linux binaries, SCO binaries, Xenix binaries, and I've gotten mine to run Solaris X86 and Rhapsody DR1 binaries, with some tweaking.
(And on a more humorous note: Linux script kiddies come knocking but don't get in. It takes a BSD script kiddie to get in
>Napster is used 99.999% of the time to download *illegal* music.
Do you have some proof for this claim?
OpenBSD is more secure because 'they' say so.
Now, why do 'they' say this?
At one time, all the code was gone through line by line looking for problems.
The default configuration comes with more bells/whitles turned on in a secure configuration.
Is that enought to declare an OS secure? Some people do.
Is OpenBSD more secure? As far as I am concerned, security begins with the person who is the SysAdm. And, if you are clueless, it won't matter WHAT OS you use.
But, if you don't know what you are doing, OpenBSD comes up in a mode with fewer chances to prove to the world you don't know what you are doing.
>Nobody is going to complain
If you notice, the nobodies ARE complaining. Look at all the BSD suck messages.
>what you've just given us is useless.
And you have enlightened us ALL with your quotation of links to wider studies proving Linux is superior.
Thank you for the heat, and no light in your flames. We have a cold snap going on.
>It is widely known that GPL attracts a bette quality of developer.
Eh? Do you have proof of this statement?
>The once-depleted oil fields of the Gulf of Mexico have refilled themselves
Please post actual links to this 'fact'. As you are so confident that the oil fields are re-filling, you can post a link, can't you?
We have some non-technology issues that can wipe us out.
Overpopulation. Or, more like, the majority of the world wants to live like they see on Dyansty re-runs. And such a life is not sustainable for 6 billion people. Hell, 1/3 of the world doesn't even have electricity.
Water. Yes, we have alot of water on this planet. But here's an example. Take the water volume of lake michigan. Pretend this is all the water in the world. A 5 gallon pail is all that is fresh. And an eyedropper full (no size of eyedropper was specified) is what is easly/cheaply obtained. Every SI chip, burger, and even you, needs good, clean water. And the clean water we can get is shrinking.
And, lets not forget things like EBOLA.
So, although run-away technology MIGHT kill us all, we have other issues to address also.
What is interesting is how no one has suggested PicoBSD or embedded Linux for the 16 Meg flash disk.
Do you have any web-pages that go into this M$/nowonder and-or the 'cavedog explosion'?
What you are all forgetting is Bill wants to bring back Olympic Decathlon.
>fight for design patents, and we'll make the world an enjoyable place!
And all this time I thought making the world an enjoyable place was to be achieved with the elimination of war, pestilance, and famine.
Thank you for setting me straight, oh mighty and wise AC!
When the Newton was cancelled 2 years ago, Apple said they were going to keep key newton technologies.
Who would have thought that technology was translucent plastic!
(The E-Mate was translucent green)
>When 99% of your software will compile and run on your system regardless of the distro that you use, what does it matter?
/etc/passwd, and look for files in /usr, etc. Some mentoring of these young pups would be a good thing...if they will take the mentoring and they can find a mentor.
If you have source code and can't get it to 100%, there is a problem with the code.
What I see happening is a whole group of NEW coders coming up thru the ranks with 'Linux Experience' and have no CLUE about writing portable code. They write it going directly to
(that is problem #1)
Anytime money is involved, the dominate player doesn't want to do anything to take away their #1 position. The X86OPEN standard -> Linux standard binaries are examples of this. I have a hard time believing if the BSD's can run linux binaries, that you can't get all the Linux distros to all agree on a common format. Its all about being at the top of the pile and the money this represents.
This fighting for #1 is EXACTLY what fragmented the Unix market years ago. Every special enhancement to the 'linux kernel' will work to drive a wedge. There is nothing stopping someone from taking the kernel and doing their own fork. And if Linus never blesses the code back into his kernel, and the fork gets marketshare, this divide will contiune because the other vendors will be emboldened to create their own version. And as long as these forks all run 'linux standard binaries', the vast majority of the market won't care. Just like the market for shrink-wrapped Linux binaries won't care if the box is RedHat, SuSe, SCO, Solaris or BSD, so long as the box containing the binary at CompUSA and says 'works with Linux' works on whatever platform they have.
The cracks are already showing....and Linus sees it. That is why at LinuxWorld 2000 in NYC he called fragmentation a good thing.