I did read the link. It refers to their kernel as a true microkernel. It uses the POSIX API (POSIX is essentially Unix). Furthermore, those who are familiar with the history of the QNX OS know its original interface comes from BSD Unix. How could you have missed this? Please don't play ``gotcha'', especially when it's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about, it's just so incredibly annoying.
Do what Microsoft does to constantly improve their GUI---i.e., track the Mac's progress. The Linux world can even better track the Mac's progress than Microsoft by getting over their religious opposition to Objective-C and just use GNUStep for the desktop. I'm not kidding either, this just seems so intuitively obvious to me; as opposed to the Linux desktop directly tracking Microsoft, which is what Gnome seems to be all about. You don't need pass or keep up with Apple, you just need to pass or keep up with Microsoft.
It's Apple's GUI libraries with the funky licensing. The OS itself (Darwin) is essentially open source. If the embedded OS rumors are true, I don't know what they'll do. I'm only assuming they would get a lot of their kernel code from Darwin.
QNX's Neutrino is basically BSD layered on a microkernel and from what I've heard is the most highly regarded embedded OS out there. I don't know where you the got the idea you couldn't or shouldn't use a microkernel in an embedded system.
No human being who's interested in learning about a subject is going to be neutral on that subject. And your first statement is nonsensical to the point of being downright irritating. Furthermore, Microsoft Office for Mac OS X doesn't have all the capabilities of the version written for MS Windows which is not the Mac's fault nor is it Pogue's---it's clearly Microsoft's. So why do you find his use of MS Office on MS Windows so amusing when this deficiency by Microsoft, to use your words, is a ``key point'' you missed?
Whether it be Dvorak or Pogue, people mostly read these things for entertainment value. It's obvious where they're coming from, but you can still glean valuable information even for any lack of neutrality. And if you're the kind of babe in the wood who needs all the background of a reviewer before you can separate fact from opinion, then you're a lost cause. The idea that a review or reviewer must be neutral, I honestly don't where you're getting that from. That seems to be as much of an opinion as anything else. But I guess you feel everyone else's stinks.
A review is an opinion piece, like an editorial, which the NYT also prints. I'm no fan of the NYT, but there's no claim to neutrality in this case. For as much as this is opinion, and as much as Pogue is a Mac fan boy, it's nonetheless the opinion of a Mac fan boy who's knowledgeable enough to have written and/or sold several manuals on MS Windows---please see the list of MS Windows manuals at The Missing Manuals web page. Yes, he's quite biased, as are we all. But in this case it's the bias of an extremely informed person. As for me, the idea of a neutral review makes no sense. If you don't have any opinions or biases, why would you want to write a review? And if you could write a neutral review (that seems like a contradiction to me), who would bother reading something so pointless and boring?
Not only does the language seem to show a bias towards MySQL, there is no depth to this. For example, SQL isn't all that huge---they lack a listing of specific differences of SQL with the standard for each database system. If you're looking for something to help you decide which database you're going to use, this article is useless.
I don't even have to guess---you're an Anonymous Coward. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something really strange, or strangely inappropriate, about someone posting as an AC on slashdot to tell a digg reader to go away. I'm probably going to get hit bad by a moderator who also feels digg readers have no right reading slashdot, but it keeps getting harder to care, as slashdot ``moderates'' (I use the term loosely) itself out of relevance.
Does anyone know if that phone would likely use a PowerPC? If that's the case, it's interesting to me that they haven't really left that world yet, and may never. It's lucky for them they had a 80x86 port of Mac OS X available for the desktop. It may be just as lucky that they have a PowerPC port available for the cellular phone. That is, if ``luck'' is really the word for all that.
Also wondering if all this is just Google's response to Apple's market growth or maybe a more serious partnership is coming?
When you're talking about Apple's market growth are you just talking about Apple's stock prices going up? Unless Apple actually gets a larger chunk of the desktop, I don't see what benefit this would be to Google. Is Apple actually getting a larger chunk of the desktop? As a fan of both BSD flavored Unix and the Mac GUI, I had always been hoping that companies would develop for the Mac just because it's so cool. I've just had to accept that things just don't work that way. Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.
Why would anyone trust this study when it's obviously by people who are bad with math who are looking to validate their ineptitude? They probably consider being ``good with people'' as being able to get away with lying to get what you want. Like getting paid for ``studies'' like these.
This is like when people say it's not about the money---it's about the money. What I see here is not about all scientists banding together to keep politics out of science, but about some scientists banding together to keep ideologies that conflict with their own in check. I'm sorry, y'all, but scientists are just as human and, sorry to say, just as political and as emotional and as emotionally manipulative as the rest of us. And the people who are doing this are just as politically motivated as anyone else.
Is this really the only reason to continue using C? Personally, I think it's an excellent language in which to program. I don't feel entirely comfortable with what appears to be the author's dim view of the language.
At first, I thought you might be making a reference to Spanglish, and then I thought you might be making a reference to Engrish. Shows how much I know.
Eric Raymond has been an important evangelist for open source software and is a self proclaimed Libertarian---that's a pretty hard core capitalist philosophy. True capitalists are all for the right to give things away. That's among the biggest of reasons they oppose the death tax. You can't give things away that the government takes away first. As a matter of fact, because a communist society doesn't recognize the concept of private property, how can you give something away if you don't have the right to own it in the first place?
Once I was told in a matter-of-fact manner by a native Iranian that I look like a shiite Muslim. I was unoffended but it does make me aware that I would be a natural choice for profiling at airports or wherever. This actually hasn't happened. The funny thing is, as much as I would hate the inconvenience if they started doing that, the lack of me being profiled makes me wonder if our security has been compromised for fear of offending too many people. When I say ``our'' security, I also mean has the lack of my being profiled compromised my own safety?
I sympathize with how you feel about what your wife has been through, as I'm sure many others do, but for the sake of everyone's security including that of your wife's and yours, I could only hope neither of you would take this personally. As for myself, if saving my life means you may take actions that will offend me then, by all means, PLEASE feel free to offend me.
Their page is as dry as a bone so as to be just about unreadable. So they don't sound like a meanderingunabomber they should learn how to better communicate their thoughts. When they come into power this had better be a major federal holiday.
If ``atheist'' is the word for someone who doesn't believe in God, what's the word for someone who doesn't believe everything Hawking says?
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
With regards to abuse of their OS market share in the past, Microsoft would do things like conceal library calls, break or cripple other people's applications, etc. If they are converting mostly people who are not using their OS in the first place, how does what you describe imply there's any abuse of their OS dominance? It doesn't look like it fits any of the patterns I've seen in the past. Does anything they do to promote their products qualify to be abuse of their OS dominance? Or maybe you'll only see it that way only if their promotions are successful.
Then if that's the case, should any administration step in and stop Microsoft anytime they're successful at promoting their software? What would that do to Slashdot when, for as much hatred is directed at Microsoft here, this forum has many times generated much excitement over things like C#,.Net, ad nauseam and in effect has promoted even, if not especially, the trashiest of Microsoft's products and has probably helped them sell much of it. Should this or any administration then shut down Slashdot for all of the Microsoft garbage it has helped sell?
Apple hasn't complained so far, that I know about anyway. Were you expecting them to do so? The way you've put your comment makes it sound like Apple has already been whining about this. Is that fair to paint them that way?
Whoever wrote the article, as well as many people in this forum, seems to believe that the success behind the iPod is merely or at least mostly about marketing. Even though the iPods are not the most impressive players out there with respect to either technology or price, I have to disagree with the pure marketing theory. There is also the question of support. The iTunes software is an extremely easy and convenient interface for a computer to the iPod. Furthermore, buying music off of the iTunes music store is far more convenient than ripping it from a CD, especially if you don't really ever plan to play the physical CD after buying it. And it takes a lot for a company to make something like the iTunes music store available.
That being said, the SanDisk might be a better choice for CD pack rats such as myself, but I don't feel most people seeking convenience are going to feel the same way.
I haven't found any explicit statement of why they're virtualizing Linux, but from looking at this page, it would appear to me that this about developing Iguana. That is, if Iguana is for providing OS services on the L4 microkernel, what better way to develop and test it than actually using it for virtualizing an existing OS interface? And considering the existing software available for it, what better OS than Linux? I don't know very much about this, but I doubt virtual Linux on L4 is intended to be an end in itself. Even so, if its performance or a significant part of its performance approaches, meets, or exceeds that of Linux, it demonstrates success in the progress in the development of Iguana, whether that's their intention or not. I think that alone is interesting.
I apologize for having written such an inflammatory comment. Having said that, how does what you said negate I what originally posted? Apple will still have an edge on support. Or will Dell support running Mac OS X on their systems? And if people move Mac OS X to Dells, why couldn't Apple look at what people have done to accommodate other hardware and use that knowledge for their own purposes? I don't ask this for rhetorical purposes. You apparently have an insight I lack. If there's anything indelicate about how I've worded this I apologize in advance.
If others take the kernel and try to write a higher level interface to it that runs Mac OS X applications, that's not piracy, that's competition. This is a really disappointing decision for a company that could have benefitted from this competition by adapting the ideas of the competition and by providing the kind of support their competition couldn't even come close to. Maybe when you decide to start running on 80x86, your brain gets twisted.
Slashdot Mirror
I did read the link. It refers to their kernel as a true microkernel. It uses the POSIX API (POSIX is essentially Unix). Furthermore, those who are familiar with the history of the QNX OS know its original interface comes from BSD Unix. How could you have missed this? Please don't play ``gotcha'', especially when it's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about, it's just so incredibly annoying.
Do what Microsoft does to constantly improve their GUI---i.e., track the Mac's progress. The Linux world can even better track the Mac's progress than Microsoft by getting over their religious opposition to Objective-C and just use GNUStep for the desktop. I'm not kidding either, this just seems so intuitively obvious to me; as opposed to the Linux desktop directly tracking Microsoft, which is what Gnome seems to be all about. You don't need pass or keep up with Apple, you just need to pass or keep up with Microsoft.
It's Apple's GUI libraries with the funky licensing. The OS itself (Darwin) is essentially open source. If the embedded OS rumors are true, I don't know what they'll do. I'm only assuming they would get a lot of their kernel code from Darwin.
QNX's Neutrino is basically BSD layered on a microkernel and from what I've heard is the most highly regarded embedded OS out there. I don't know where you the got the idea you couldn't or shouldn't use a microkernel in an embedded system.
No human being who's interested in learning about a subject is going to be neutral on that subject. And your first statement is nonsensical to the point of being downright irritating. Furthermore, Microsoft Office for Mac OS X doesn't have all the capabilities of the version written for MS Windows which is not the Mac's fault nor is it Pogue's---it's clearly Microsoft's. So why do you find his use of MS Office on MS Windows so amusing when this deficiency by Microsoft, to use your words, is a ``key point'' you missed?
Whether it be Dvorak or Pogue, people mostly read these things for entertainment value. It's obvious where they're coming from, but you can still glean valuable information even for any lack of neutrality. And if you're the kind of babe in the wood who needs all the background of a reviewer before you can separate fact from opinion, then you're a lost cause. The idea that a review or reviewer must be neutral, I honestly don't where you're getting that from. That seems to be as much of an opinion as anything else. But I guess you feel everyone else's stinks.
A review is an opinion piece, like an editorial, which the NYT also prints. I'm no fan of the NYT, but there's no claim to neutrality in this case. For as much as this is opinion, and as much as Pogue is a Mac fan boy, it's nonetheless the opinion of a Mac fan boy who's knowledgeable enough to have written and/or sold several manuals on MS Windows---please see the list of MS Windows manuals at The Missing Manuals web page. Yes, he's quite biased, as are we all. But in this case it's the bias of an extremely informed person. As for me, the idea of a neutral review makes no sense. If you don't have any opinions or biases, why would you want to write a review? And if you could write a neutral review (that seems like a contradiction to me), who would bother reading something so pointless and boring?
Not only does the language seem to show a bias towards MySQL, there is no depth to this. For example, SQL isn't all that huge---they lack a listing of specific differences of SQL with the standard for each database system. If you're looking for something to help you decide which database you're going to use, this article is useless.
You've got some seriously good recommendations here. I only hope you've submitted them to Apple's feedback for Mac OS X.
I don't even have to guess---you're an Anonymous Coward. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something really strange, or strangely inappropriate, about someone posting as an AC on slashdot to tell a digg reader to go away. I'm probably going to get hit bad by a moderator who also feels digg readers have no right reading slashdot, but it keeps getting harder to care, as slashdot ``moderates'' (I use the term loosely) itself out of relevance.
Does anyone know if that phone would likely use a PowerPC? If that's the case, it's interesting to me that they haven't really left that world yet, and may never. It's lucky for them they had a 80x86 port of Mac OS X available for the desktop. It may be just as lucky that they have a PowerPC port available for the cellular phone. That is, if ``luck'' is really the word for all that.
Why would anyone trust this study when it's obviously by people who are bad with math who are looking to validate their ineptitude? They probably consider being ``good with people'' as being able to get away with lying to get what you want. Like getting paid for ``studies'' like these.
This is like when people say it's not about the money---it's about the money. What I see here is not about all scientists banding together to keep politics out of science, but about some scientists banding together to keep ideologies that conflict with their own in check. I'm sorry, y'all, but scientists are just as human and, sorry to say, just as political and as emotional and as emotionally manipulative as the rest of us. And the people who are doing this are just as politically motivated as anyone else.
At first, I thought you might be making a reference to Spanglish, and then I thought you might be making a reference to Engrish. Shows how much I know.
Eric Raymond has been an important evangelist for open source software and is a self proclaimed Libertarian---that's a pretty hard core capitalist philosophy. True capitalists are all for the right to give things away. That's among the biggest of reasons they oppose the death tax. You can't give things away that the government takes away first. As a matter of fact, because a communist society doesn't recognize the concept of private property, how can you give something away if you don't have the right to own it in the first place?
Once I was told in a matter-of-fact manner by a native Iranian that I look like a shiite Muslim. I was unoffended but it does make me aware that I would be a natural choice for profiling at airports or wherever. This actually hasn't happened. The funny thing is, as much as I would hate the inconvenience if they started doing that, the lack of me being profiled makes me wonder if our security has been compromised for fear of offending too many people. When I say ``our'' security, I also mean has the lack of my being profiled compromised my own safety?
I sympathize with how you feel about what your wife has been through, as I'm sure many others do, but for the sake of everyone's security including that of your wife's and yours, I could only hope neither of you would take this personally. As for myself, if saving my life means you may take actions that will offend me then, by all means, PLEASE feel free to offend me.
Their page is as dry as a bone so as to be just about unreadable. So they don't sound like a meandering unabomber they should learn how to better communicate their thoughts. When they come into power this had better be a major federal holiday.
If ``atheist'' is the word for someone who doesn't believe in God, what's the word for someone who doesn't believe everything Hawking says?
Then if that's the case, should any administration step in and stop Microsoft anytime they're successful at promoting their software? What would that do to Slashdot when, for as much hatred is directed at Microsoft here, this forum has many times generated much excitement over things like C#, .Net, ad nauseam and in effect has promoted even, if not especially, the trashiest of Microsoft's products and has probably helped them sell much of it. Should this or any administration then shut down Slashdot for all of the Microsoft garbage it has helped sell?
Apple hasn't complained so far, that I know about anyway. Were you expecting them to do so? The way you've put your comment makes it sound like Apple has already been whining about this. Is that fair to paint them that way?
Whoever wrote the article, as well as many people in this forum, seems to believe that the success behind the iPod is merely or at least mostly about marketing. Even though the iPods are not the most impressive players out there with respect to either technology or price, I have to disagree with the pure marketing theory. There is also the question of support. The iTunes software is an extremely easy and convenient interface for a computer to the iPod. Furthermore, buying music off of the iTunes music store is far more convenient than ripping it from a CD, especially if you don't really ever plan to play the physical CD after buying it. And it takes a lot for a company to make something like the iTunes music store available.
That being said, the SanDisk might be a better choice for CD pack rats such as myself, but I don't feel most people seeking convenience are going to feel the same way.
I haven't found any explicit statement of why they're virtualizing Linux, but from looking at this page, it would appear to me that this about developing Iguana. That is, if Iguana is for providing OS services on the L4 microkernel, what better way to develop and test it than actually using it for virtualizing an existing OS interface? And considering the existing software available for it, what better OS than Linux? I don't know very much about this, but I doubt virtual Linux on L4 is intended to be an end in itself. Even so, if its performance or a significant part of its performance approaches, meets, or exceeds that of Linux, it demonstrates success in the progress in the development of Iguana, whether that's their intention or not. I think that alone is interesting.
I apologize for having written such an inflammatory comment. Having said that, how does what you said negate I what originally posted? Apple will still have an edge on support. Or will Dell support running Mac OS X on their systems? And if people move Mac OS X to Dells, why couldn't Apple look at what people have done to accommodate other hardware and use that knowledge for their own purposes? I don't ask this for rhetorical purposes. You apparently have an insight I lack. If there's anything indelicate about how I've worded this I apologize in advance.
If others take the kernel and try to write a higher level interface to it that runs Mac OS X applications, that's not piracy, that's competition. This is a really disappointing decision for a company that could have benefitted from this competition by adapting the ideas of the competition and by providing the kind of support their competition couldn't even come close to. Maybe when you decide to start running on 80x86, your brain gets twisted.