108 posts • joined 7 Jan 2008
As usual, XKCD offers deceptively profound insight...
The point being, there is disagreement over how fast it's going, partly over the maths, partly because of incomplete models, partly because we don't know all the factors yet.
But that doesn't mean it /isn't/ happening, and it is extremely foolish to think "hey, some estimates say no problem, so we're FIIIIIIIIIIIINE!"
It's not about Intel GMA drivers. It's the firmware.
Jeez, so much disinformation in the comments.
It is *nothing* to do with drivers for Intel GMA9x0 graphics; that's a side-effect. There are in fact 64-bit drivers for GMA950:
The first-gen Macintels had Core Solo & Core Duo CPUs. These were 32-bit-only chips. These Macs can only run up to Snow Leopard, which includes both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels.
Ref: Apple cheat-sheet - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696
The 2nd gen had Core 2 Duo, which can run 64-bit code, but the EFI firmware is still 32-bit.
Lion includes both 64-bit and 32-bit kernels and thus can run on machines with 32-bit firmware, so long as they have at least 2GB of RAM. (32-bit Macs have the same limits on RAM above 3-and-a-bit gig as 32-bit PCs.)
Ref: Apple support again - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4287
Mountain Lion & Mavericks only have 64-bit kernels. They therefore require machines with 64-bit EFI to boot at all.
However, as the above article states, the higher requirements of GPU capabilities in the newer OS's versions of OpenGL, OpenCL etc. do mean that some models whose CPU and EFI are compliant will not work.
Re: It's to my eternal dismay
Bear in mind that the original US Timex Sinclair 2068 is /not/ the same as the Portuguese Timex Computer 2068. But you're right, they /must/ have known and it's a criminal oversight.
Re: Sounds like a brilliant move
> Nothing against Ubuntu, but you'd be lacking in senses if you decided to pick Ubuntu over CentOS
> for your server needs after this news.
I disagree. A lot of sysadmins rate Debian as considerably better than RH. Many still prefer APT-GET over YUM and RPM, or Debian's openness over RH's lack of it.
Ubuntu Server is basically Debian with a fixed, regular release schedule and a cleaner install, minus TASKSEL, which those rolling their own don't need anyway. I know some sysadmins who prefer Ubuntu Server to Debian for this reason: /nothing/ is installed by default, not even ssh. 3rd party support for Ubuntu is also now more plentiful than for Debian or Red Hat.
Re: @SVV Sounds like a brilliant move
> I thought that RHEL was free to obtain and run but you paid for a support contract?
No. RHEL is purely commercial and is only available by buying it.
CentOS & Scientific Linux take RHEL's published source files & recompile them. Their OSes are Free and freeware: no charge, no support.
Oracle takes the sources, recompiles them, gives the binaries away for nothing but charges for support, as you describe.
Oracle is thus offering RH's own product for free & charging less for support. Various commentators, myself included, speculated that this was in an effort to reduce RH's share price for possible hostile acquisition. However, this hasn't happened. Possible reasons are:
• Perhaps people don't think Oracle can support someone else's code as well as the code's authors can.
• Perhaps people just don't trust Oracle.
Or you could go USB & have the real thing
As Tynemouth Software provides -- for a price:
Re: Missing components
This is true, yes, but I did specifically say:
> Then you need to licence the [...] layered products on top, such as Exchange or SQL Server.
> Of course, various bundles and deals apply to all this.
Those layered products include the high-end management tools.
It's a complicated, hairy mess, as many Microsoft resellers said to me in my background research.
That is true of /all/ forms of virtualisation, though. If you're running dozens of Windows or Linux or whatever instances on top of a single copy of Windows Server with Hyper-V and that host copy of Windows goes down, all your instances are gone, instant toast.
OS virtualisation makes no difference to this at all.
Of course, this is what clustering and failover are for, but then again, if Windows integrated some form of containers, there is no reason at all that they could not fail over to containers on other hosts.
Nope, IBM VM is something quite different again - this is using one OS kernel to multitask multiple instances of another, different OS kernel, one per user. This is directly homologous to, say, running multiple Windows Server instances on VMware, or running multiple Linux instances on top of Hyper-V Server.
Again, do buy the ebook. :-) I'm not on royalties here! It's just the best intro to the basic underpinnings that I could do.
No, timesharing is something quite different. May I suggest my Reg ebook?
The source articles are still on the Reg if you search for them.
Timesharing means simultaneously multitasking multiple interactive user sessions; it's something totally different.
Yes, these certainly make it simple, but at (literally) a steep price.
No problem - but they've changed their tune, then. My source was the Microsoft speakers at _Microsoft's launch event for WS2012_ which I covered here:
... and here:
Re: Couple more more oddity OSs
This is the modern Commodore 64:
Re: OS/2? Netware?
Neither OS/2 (or eComStation) nor VMS is mentioned because none are FOSS nor even freeware.
I am aware of FreeVMS but it is old, inactive, incomplete and has not advanced in years. I think it's dead.
Risc OS 5 is not open source; it is merely Shared Source.
Castle's licence explicitly forbids porting to x86.
In any event, if they did, it would be of little interest. Architecturally, it is primitive, with no true memory protection, no virtual memory, no disk partition support and no preemptive multitasking in the kernel (bizarrely, the *Text Editor* does this. Yes, really.)
That one is *ancient*. Try RPCEmu if you want something current:
Now with Acorn Phoebe (Risc PC 2) emulation!
Even that's been addressed now:
The QNX demo disk is still around:
Mere clean-room development and reverse engineering is not sufficient if the APIs, look and feel etc. are themselves legally-protected.
Also, to retain Windows compatibility, ReactOS is developed with and must be built with Microsoft compilers. I am not sure that the whole thing /can/ be compiled with GCC, but if even parts are, then it ceases to be able to execute Windows binaries and drivers, I believe.
Seriously, I don't think they have a snowball's chance in a supernova if they ever get close enough to be any kind of a serious option or even a minor threat.
Yes, there is. Read more carefully.
Re: OpenVMS is still supported
You may note the author of that piece and compare to the current one. :¬)
Oberon is slated for inclusion in a future article that I am draughting on the use of non-traditional programming languages for OS design and implementation.
Bluebottle might make the cut as well. :¬)
In my opinion, yes. I think it's a lot more attractive than, for example, Windows 8 or most Linux distributions - for example, KDE has been beaten very hard with the ugly stick.
The most attractive-looking OSes ever in my book were BeOS and NeXTstep.
Re: What happened to OS-9?
AFAIK NitrOS9 is just an enhanced version of the Dragon 32 implementation of OS9.
There are far more modern versions of OS9 available for x86, various RISC chips and so on.
However, it is not included because it is neither FOSS nor freeware.
Re: No mention of the PenOS from Go corp.
Not included because it was not FOSS or even freeware, and is also very long obsolete.
All the OSes mentioned can be downloaded and run on modern hardware at no cost.
Re: Also, no mention of Amiga OS?
Amiga OS is indeed mentioned in the article, with links to Amiga OS 4, MorphOS and both AROS and Icaros.
However I think that the coward to whom you're replying has deleted their comment, the wuss. :¬)
Re: SqueakNOS and house
House does indeed look amazing. Sadly, I only discovered it subsequently, but I am draughting a future article looking at OSes written in unconventional programming languages...
Re: No love for eComStation nee OS/2 ?
Not included, because it is not FOSS or even freeware.
Re: Are you a religious nut?
TempleOS is wonderful. It is written by a severely mentally ill man who is in long-term care. Yes, he has recently got religion bad. Earlier versions had different names and did not have the religious imagery.
It is not OK to mock people with mental illness, even if they are a genius.
Re: Couple more more oddity OSs
MenuetOS is in the article. Read more carefully. :¬)
Contiki is not included because (AFAIK) it does not run on x86 - it focusses on much lower-end hardware. It was originally designed for 1980s 8-bit home micros: it runs on the Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC series and so on.
Re: Haiku's well worth looking at...
All Linux ISOs for years have been bootable off both optical media and USB. The FOSS Unetbootin tool lets you make a bootable USB key.
Re: Ahhh, BeOs
This is unfair and inaccurate.
The BeBox included a "geek port" for hardware hackers.
They open-sourced the Tracker desktop, which is what Haiku runs.
Re: What happened to...
Not included, because it didn't run on x86. Also, not freeware.
Re: What happened to...
Not included, because it wasn't FOSS or freeware.
It still exists:
Re: Ahhh, BeOs
Indeed it did. Hitachi licensed BeOS and bundled it with specialist audio-video workstations.
Microsoft invoked an obscure clause in the licence agreement for MS-DOS and barred Hitachi from making the BeOS partition bootable. The machines *had* to include MS-DOS, *had* to boot directly into MS-DOS and were not allowed to even offer a boot menu offering BeOS as an option. Customers had to boot BeOS from a floppy and rewrite the bootsector.
Unsurprisingly, the machines did not catch on.
Typical strong-arm restraint-of-trade tactics from the 1990s Microsoft.
Yes, Forth does indeed run standalone:
Chuck Moore also has a dedicated 144-core Forth chip:
Alpha was the first non-Intel platform that Linux was ported to, using Alpha workstations donated to Linus Torvalds by DEC. Support for it was excellent back when Alpha hardware was still current.
VisOpSys is already mentioned in the article. Read more carefully. :¬)
No, I think they're allowing virtual Cylinder/Head/Sector addressing. Well, that's what CHS immediately says to me, anyway.
Re: That GUI
Yes it was. Yours truly wrote the article that covered the release for the Reg.
Said article was of course behind the "CDE Desktop" link in the story... but thanks for the update.
Re: Nearly made it
The letter that is the *first link in the story,* you mean?
BTW, another small thing given your immense attention to detail: it's "Proven", with an R.
I really don't see what was particularly hard about /The Algebraist./ I'd say the least accessible of his SF was /Inversions/ myself. (Which, to reignite an old argument, *is* a Culture novel due to the inclusion of at least one minor detail. Which this is is left as an exercise for the alert reader.)
/Use of Weapons/ is perhaps the best of his SF. To decry it as too hard is to miss the point of reading IMB. It is not easy reading.
The hard-of-thinking should probably stick to J K Rowling or Dan Brown.
It wasn't just the RISC PC
"Podule" was the officlal name for *all* the internal expanion cards for all the Acorn ARM machines, from the original Archimedes to the final Risc PC. As such, I've been using it since about 1987. I have an Ethernet podule in my A5000, for instance.
Re: "There never will be a year when Linux conquers the desktop" - WRONG
Do explain to me exactly when Android became a desktop OS?
Because here I was thinking that it was a handheld/phone one, almost exclusively for touch-driven devices. In fact I don't think I've seen a single Android desktop computer ever.
Re: Ubuntu should have kept their focus
Another commenter who appears not to have read the article.
Just to help you out - the purpose of the article was to explain *why* Canonical and GNOME rewrote their desktops *instead* of comtinuing work on GNOME 2.
Perhaps you might write this on a sticky note, slap it on your monitor and then read the article again, all the way from beginning to end, while glancing regularly at the note to remind yourself of why you're doing so.
Re: This is nonsense
As with many other posters and commentators on this issue, you appear not to understand the actual details that this debate is about.
If you consider the differences between Windows 3 and 95 to be minor, then you do not understand the sort of software design changes that are patentable and the elements of look and feel of which are made legal disputes. Seriously. The stuff that you casually dismiss as minor *is the basis of the whole discussion.*
So either go study up on the trivial differences or kindly leave the debate, because you do not understand.
It is also facile, glib and useless to idly comment that U, V X, Y and Z copied each other; the important part of of the discussion is to take them apart, look at the dates, and work out who took what from where and when they did it. Xerox did not borrow from the Mac; the Mac didn't exist yet when Xerox did its work. Lisa didn't borrow from GEM; it predated GEM. And so on.
Interesting. Do please elucide, with examples, ideally illustrated.
The differences seem minor to me - multiple panels, 2 by default, rather than one. (But readily merged, e.g. in Mint.) Multiple menus with apps, filesystem and system-admin separated out (as they were in early Windows 4 betas) - but merged back together in some distros.
GNOME 2 is more customisable, sure - but it did not do vertical taskbars as well as Windows, for instance, so it's not a complete win. It lagged badly in some areas. (E.g. try renaming or deleting a folder from the tree in the Nautilus sidebar. It's a magic, uneditable view, unlike in Windows Explorer.)
I'm glad you liked the WPS. As an OS/2 user from 1.0 myself and an early-adopter of OS/2 2.0, I hated it. I thought it was an ugly, clunky mess.
However, it had little influence over Win95 -- if you feel differently, then please provided illustrated examples, with dates.
But yes, OS/2 and Windows share a lot of design elements, especially in window management, menu and dialog box design, because they were written by closely-cooperating teams with members from both IBM and Microsoft.
OS/2 inherited its window manager design from Windows 2. Windows 3 in turn took its Program and File Managers, its 3D title-bar widgets and other elements from OS/2 1.2 and 1.3.
OS/2 2.x was created after MS & IBM fell out and shows signs of IBM intentionally trying to do things differently, presumably for fear of litigation - e.g. the missing "Apply" and "Close" buttons in WPS dialogs. However, OS/2 contains lots of licensed Microsoft code, which is one of the reasons why it has never been open-sourced.
Re: Boooring, where is CDE?
/Some/ OpenWindows apps had menus, not all. When present, they were implemented as a row of separate buttons, each of which opened a separate menu. This design was bolted on later - SunView lacked even this.
In fact, SunView originally did not even have things like maximise, minimise or close buttons. Example:
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked