Posted on 05/27/2008 10:31:41 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
Switching gears. Walt asks about Vista and the lousy reception it’s been given. Is Vista a failure?Ballmer: Vista is not a failure. Is it something we’d like to improve? Of course. Is it something that with 20/20 hindsight we’d do differently? Sure, he confesses. But Vista has sold a lot of copies, he adds.
Walt jumps in and asks about the percentage of Vista sales that result in downgrades to XP. Ballmer dodges. Gates looking a little depressed.
Walt asks if Vista has damaged with Windows brand.
Gates says Microsoft’s philosophy is to “do things better.” And Vista has given us lots of opportunity to do that, he notes. (Audience laughter.) There are plenty of lessons out of Vista–compatibility and other issues vendors are concerned about.
Ballmer says that according to consumer research, the No. 1 complaint about Vista was the change to the Windows user interface.
The conversation turns to Windows 7, which Microsoft hasn’t said too much about. Clearly, the company has learned from the media beating it took over the defeatured and perennially delayed Windows Vista. Indeed, in a post to the Windows Vista blog today, Microsoft’s Chris Flore noted that Microsoft is being very careful about releasing details about Windows 7. “What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows,” Flore wrote. “So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we’re trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners. This means sharing the right level of information at the right time depending on the needs of the audience.”
Well, apparently this is the right time and the right audience, because we’re about to get a Windows 7 demo (Oh, one more thing …. Here’s hoping Microsoft shares only those aspects of the new OS that it doesn’t end up de-featuring at a later date.)
Ballmer says what we’re about to see is “just a snippet” of Windows 7.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at allthingsd.com ...
What made MacOS X so great is that operates on top of a true flat-memory mode UNIX kernel (the Mach kernel), which means strong memory stability to start with. It should be noted that recent problems with the iMac was caused by overheating hardware, not unstable software; they were fixed by updating MacOS code to reduce the stress on the hardware itself.
One problem - the lead MS developer for Windows 7 says that it won’t remove the 95/98/XP compatibility and that there *won’t* be an application sandbox for them.
Minor nitpick. After a couple of failed attempts to create a next-generation OS, Apple had already decided to build on NextStep when they bought NeXT. Bringing back Steve was a bonus. At the time, it wasn't announced that Jobs would be back as CEO, but I think everyone involved in the deal pretty much knew the score and just forgot to tell Gil Amelio.
Doesn't Walt also speak English on occasion?
Close... Apple GAVE Xerox 1 million shares of pre-IPO stock in exchange for the two visits to PARC and permission to use anything they learned on their visits.
You're right, it is confusing. See the problem we have in defining exactly what UNIX is? You know the situation is bad when you need a chart like this to explain it.
It’s not confusing at all, if it’s a derivative of ATT Unix it’s referred to as “Unix”. Why you thought that excluded OSX in your post above no one will ever know, and why you want to blur the lines between Unix and foreign clones like Linux doesn’t make any sense either. I’d recommend just keeping quiet on the matter to you finally figure it out, should that day ever come.
So what is a derivative of AT&T UNIX? Is it the codebase that makes it a derivative? BSD was rewritten to remove almost all AT&T code so that only a small fraction of one percent of the files had any AT&T (actually USL) copyright as of 14 years ago. On top of that, OS X doesn't even use the BSD kernel, but Mach. It contains the BSD userland and many utilities, but remember, BSD started as Berkely-written utilities for AT&T UNIX.
There is barely any, if any, codebase lineage to AT&T from OS X, yet somehow we refer to it as UNIX.
And if you sell your "Unix" without it being certified UNIX then you may be sued for trademark infringement even if it is an AT&T derivative. The people who own the name consider "UNIX" to be conforming to the standards, nothing to do with lineage. Or don't you believe they have the right to enforce their trademark?
I’d recommend just keeping quiet on the matter to you finally figure it out, should that day ever come.
No thanks. I'll stay and keep injecting facts into your fantasies.
Thanks for the clarification.
Anything that was derived from or resulted from that code, duh.
BSD was rewritten to remove almost all AT&T code
So what? It's still a derivative.
OS X doesn't even use the BSD kernel, but Mach. It contains the BSD userland
Clearly making it a derivative. OSX is certified UNIX now too.
The people who own the name consider "UNIX" to be conforming to the standards, nothing to do with lineage. Or don't you believe they have the right to enforce their trademark?
Sure they do, but BSD was "Unix" before they even existed, and trademarking the name isn't going to stop it from being generally referenced as such. No different than if Linus Torvalds suddenly decided he was going to revoke Novell's rights to use the Linux trademark, SuSE woud still be generally considered part of the Linux family, since that is/was its development base and remains it's technical bloodline. Simple to most, you'll no doubt still be confused though.
Anything that was derived from or resulted from that code, duh.
BSD was rewritten to remove almost all AT&T code
So what? It's still a derivative.
OS X doesn't even use the BSD kernel, but Mach. It contains the BSD userland
Clearly making it a derivative. OSX is certified UNIX now too.
The people who own the name consider "UNIX" to be conforming to the standards, nothing to do with lineage. Or don't you believe they have the right to enforce their trademark?
Sure they do, but BSD was "Unix" before they even existed, and trademarking the name isn't going to stop it from being generally referenced as such. No different than if Linus Torvalds suddenly decided he was going to revoke Novell's rights to use the Linux trademark, SuSE woud still be generally considered part of the Linux family, since that is/was its development base and remains it's technical bloodline. Simple to most, you'll no doubt still be confused though.
So according to you and others, Linux is a true UNIX derivative because it has UNIX code in it. Also with that definition EVERY *nix these these days is in essence derived from that code because it mimics the functionality and interface. In general, this is the definition of a "UNIX-like" operating system.
OSX is certified UNIX now too.
There's the word, "certified," which requires zero AT&T UNIX heritage, only functionality. Linux could be certified too (it's pretty much compliant), except that Torvalds changes it so much any certified version would already be outdated. Wouldn't that just piss you off, Linux certified true UNIX™.
Sure they do, but BSD was "Unix" before they even existed, and trademarking the name isn't going to stop it from being generally referenced as such.
You're jumping all over the place in this one post. The first second sentences you said derivation makes UNIX. The third you said it's certification. Now you're talking the vernacular (what it would be generally referenced as) that covers anything UNIX-like.
Simple to most, you'll no doubt still be confused though.
You are trying to confuse by jumping all around, but it's not working.
You’re getting Unix and Posix confused now. Unix and Linux both conform to Posix standards, but doesn’t mean they are the same family of operating systems, they are clear and distinct subsets within the Posix family.
And while the current owners of the Unix trademark possibly would be willing to prostitute it out to a foreign clone like Linux for a few pieces of gold, they haven’t yet nor do they have any plans to, so once again you’re just trying to muddy the waters rather than admit Unix is the American original and Linux is the foreign clone, but facts are facts and you’ll have to live with them.
UNIX certification is not POSIX. POSIX describes an application portability interface. UNIX certification describes the system calls, libraries, utilities, C language and interfaces of an operating system. Learn first, talk later.
And while the current owners of the Unix trademark possibly would be willing to prostitute it out to a foreign clone like Linux for a few pieces of gold, they haven’t yet nor do they have any plans to
It doesn't work that way, there's nothing to plan, and they really have no choice under the system they created. Any organization can make its operating system UNIX compliant and then upon application and testing the Open Group will certify it. There's no "prostituting" on a system based solely on merit. You are still thinking emotionally. You and open source zealots are the only types I know who do that.
Unix is the American original and Linux is the foreign clone
I never said UNIX wasn't an American original. Everything else, including BSD, is a clone. Or you can agree with Dennis Ritchie (a creator of the original Bell Labs UNIX) in that all UNIX-like systems are de-facto UNIX (looks like a duck, walks like a duck...).
Given your hatred of all things ripped-off, remember that UNIX was ripped-off from Multics. Multics was led by MIT and Bell went in on it. Ritchie and Thompson took all their knowledge from working on it and started UNIX at Bell, after which Bell abandoned the Multics project. If you applied your hatred equally, you should be railing against UNIX and Bell.
And do remember in your love for lawsuits to hurt open source, that the only reason Linux exists is because of the lawsuit against BSD by the owners of the original UNIX. Torvalds has said he wouldn't have bothered with Linux if BSD had been available, and the only reason it wasn't available at that time was the lawsuit.
POSIX is the standard that Unix and Linux share, but that doesn''t mean they are the same operating system or can be referred to interchangeably. You're going off in left field with a strawman like usual, now trying to sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't even understand something as basic as Unix and Linux being different operating system families.
I never said UNIX wasn't an American original.
You never say anything you don't back down from or even do a 180 on when the time comes. What is/was your supposed point in this whole discussion, other than the admission you have difficulty understanding the differences between the Unix and Linux families? You're confused, we get that, anything else? You wanted to point out I support US products, and US intellectual property laws, while you'd rather criticize them and promote foreign alternatives as equal if not better? Fine, is there another point you've been trying to make? Everything else is perfectly clear.
I've been talking about UNIX certification. You switched it to POSIX or, more likely, thought UNIX certification consisted only of POSIX compliance and I caught you on it.
you don't even understand something as basic as Unix and Linux being different operating system families.
They're both UNIX according to a creator of UNIX. You need to get your terminology straight, as "UNIX" has several different meanings.
You wanted to point out I support US products, and US intellectual property laws, while you'd rather criticize them and promote foreign alternatives as equal if not better?
I criticize them when they're wrong, and I criticize you when you show inconsistency. Open source GPL is bad because our enemies can get it, but BSD with an even more permissive license is good, then weasel when caught. Linux stole from UNIX, but forget UNIX stole from Multics.
As far as Linux, remember it's foreign-born, but these days hardly foreign in content (I know, "we're giving away tech" but you don't apply that to BSD, right?). I also can't remember when I've ever said Linux is better than other UNIX in general, so please point that out (except SCO's offerings, as they suck). Unlike you, I promote anything based solely on merit. If I promoted anything, it was where merit was warranted.
Interestingly, I see in the authoritative UNIX timeline that both Solaris and UNIXWare got code and/or concepts from Linux. Which one is stealing from which?
That's an extremely shallow opinion that misrepresents my position. I generally don't support open source, but if that's truely what you need you can use the American original, Unix, not the foreign clone Linux. That's what really sets you off, you've accused me of being xenophobic while you're mr. international. Fine if you want to be mr. international but as an American I prefer to use American products. And why would I want to use a cheap clone of anything, much less a cheap foreign clone of something originating from the US? Your xenophobic alarm bells are going off again I'm sure, but my preference for US products is good for America, is something I'm proud of, and if it makes you cringe more the better.
No, it's true. You were on a "Linux is foreign" kick again, then we told you that much of Linux is American. In response you went on a "Linux gives our technology to the enemy" kick. Then when reminded that BSD does the exact same thing with an even more permissive license you weaseled that BSD isn't useful enough for supercomputers and our enemies aren't using it anyway.
So now you appear to be of the opinion that it's better that American technology be given away ("but if that's truely what you need you can use the American original") than have foreigners come up with it themselves. But then NetBSD and OpenBSD were founded and are maintained by foreigners (especially the anti-war de Raadt).
Principles are great. Inconsistently applied principles are hypocrisy.
I generally don't support open source
That's fine, you're allowed your opinions. But be consistent.
And why would I want to use a cheap clone of anything, much less a cheap foreign clone of something originating from the US?
I wouldn't want to use a cheap clone, foreign or domestic, either. Now a high-speed clone is a different matter. I use a high-speed clone every day -- Mac OS X. I post this to a system running Linux. I get my mail from a Linux system.
but my preference for US products is good for America
Blind preference for American products almost killed our car industry. Banking on loyalty the industry got sloppy and produced a lot of garbage. It took competition (remember that capitalist term?) and a thorough trouncing by the Japanese to wake them up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.