No. NeXTSTEP pre-dated NetBSD and FreeBSD. NeXTSTEP was based on BSD Tahoe 4.3, and OS X took code from all three codebases (OS X was NetBSD-heavy in the early days until Jordan Hubbard joined Apple and influenced further conversion to FreeBSD code).
To this day you can find BSD code from all BSD codebases, but not quite as much from OpenBSD. Run 'strings' on the libraries to get the skinny.
Hehe. Tier-1, not Level-1. Maybe I should stop using that term in my resume, perhaps that explains quite a lot.
I worked at Microsoft for the Windows 95 launch, where I provided Tier-1 support for BOOP (Bill and the Office of the President, i.e. CEO tradeshow tech support). I do recall that Bill specifically called out the 'shutdown' function on Windows 95 as an error. He didn't like it, he hated the idea of waiting for the OS to shutdown, and wanted simply to be able to push the power button to immediately turn the system off, like a DOS PC.
He may or may not have understood the concept of in-memory caches and unsaved user work, but it didn't much matter to him.
...Although we wouldn't need to worry about any dubious cribbing with Logan's Run; the original was a classic.
I'm not a neurologist, so school me. But look, we all know when we are having ocular hallucinations. Press on your closed eyes for a while and open them. There's no perception of depth to it; no sense of "oh, that hallucination looks like it's hovering over that hill 30 meters away." Now, these are allegedly affecting the visual cortex directly, but still...
How would a magnetic field hallucination within the visual cortex create a sense of binocular depth, and consistently track to a static location in space, within each input to the cortex? It's _obvious_, isn't it, when we hallucinate? Just flick your eyes a bit and move your focus, and watch the hallucination follow.
So make a better open platform instead of whining about the fact that a company that apparently knows how to make a platform is making decisions you don't like.
As an Apple user and shareholder I have every right to express my grievances with their business decisions.
Or don't you agree?
"Shut up and go away" is an extremely weak response to the argument. Unfortunately it seems to be the primary response in defense of the App Store.
It's not hyperbole when "all" refers to us OS X developers, which was the intention.
Nor is it hyperbole if a closed developer channel proves too lucrative, and too compelling-- and other platforms smell blood in the water. Like Microsoft, for example, who already is implementing a single gateway for Windows Mobile 7 development.
I would love for it to *be* hyperbole. I certainly hope it turns out to be so, and that the larger open platform (where developers can choose their own audience) isn't rendered obsolete.
The end does not justify the means. Anything that restricts developer and user freedom in a mass-market channel should be argued against.
And anything NOT open source can be considered a "closed system". Windows is a closed system. What Apple did was to extend the closure to the developer channel, such that it provides a single, monolithic, commercial gateway to the system, which has been very rare in the industry. Not even Microsoft at their most abusive would have attempted that kind of developer lockout.
The fact that Company X makes a closed system is nothing new, nor is it noteworthy. Closed systems are a dime a dozen.
What the blogs are on fire about, and what we ALL should be worried about, is a closed developer ecosystem. It's Apple's new focus, and if it's allowed to propagate to the open platform we're all screwed.
I guess that's why my knee is jerking. The iPad looks too much like the future, and too little like OS X.
Does it exist? Between the App Store, the iPad, platform and channel lockdowns, and the trend toward punishing developers, pro users, and creatives, Apple is showing an unbelievable amount of hubris lately.
They are burning their bridges and salting the earth behind them. They may be in a mass-consumer ("the lowest common denominator") ascendancy right now, but they won't be able to stay there with this attitude.
Although in this case, the project manager of Bob was Melinda French--now known as Mrs. Bill Gates.
In other words, she stayed in on her back. Normally that dismal a failure causes a project manager to be shown the door, but because of who she was sleeping it, she could do no wrong.
You nailed the one, single reason we're still talking about Bob. I recall she was also responsible for Microsoft's "Magic School Bus" properties as well, which weren't particularly successful either. She showed off Bob to the luminaries at the Allen and Company conference in '95, and I recall the deathly silence in the room.
If this Slashdot article could be boiled down to one fact, this would be it.
Hard, yes, but not impossible. STALKER achieves most of this as an open-world shooter. You are free to turn back to base at any time. Hell, you are free to give it all up and just sell vodka to mercenaries, if that floats your boat. Sure, there are still "game" limitations, but relatively few of them compared to any invisible-path or rail shooter like CoD.
It's a difficult game for the same reasons that it's a challenging open-world game. You could be jumped by various things at any time, and you often don't have the weapons or ammunition you wished you had. But it comes awfully close to this "reality" you speak of, if your reality involves mutants, anomalies, and government coverups in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In which case you're better off with a nice Mario game.
"As I said earlier, there’s one exception to rule, and that’s DCs themselves. Every Domain has a unique Domain SID that’s randomly generated by Domain setup, and all machine SIDs for the Domain’s DCs match the Domain SID. So in some sense, that’s a case where machine SIDs do get referenced by other computers. That means that Domain member computers cannot have the same machine SID as that of the DCs and therefore Domain. However, like member computers, each DC also has a computer account in the Domain, and that’s the identity they have when they authenticate to remote systems. All accounts in a Domain, including computers, users and security groups, have SIDs that are based on the Domain SID in the same way local account SIDs are based on the machine SID, but the two are unrelated."
The low ramifications of this as mentioned above may have changed post Win2K and XP. This particular caveat governed our processes as system deployment specialists for Microsoft corporate events. We had to make sure that any potential DC had a unique SID even before the machines were promoted to DC, otherwise we saw (verifiably!) many issues with Workstations failing to join the domain. I seem to recall other more esoteric issues with older Microsoft server products, but that may be delusions based on the mass hysteria we had about unique SIDs at the time.
1188
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
