Why stick with VMS when you can get the same Dave Cutler design by rotating everything one letter forward, forming the WNT at the core of Windows Server?
And when you want a SpaceX rocket, why not go buy a Tesla car instead?
I am surprised that people still want to use OpenVMS.
OpenVMS is the most mature microkernel OS out there. You can have flaky hardware, flaky drivers, flaky software, and it'll just keep running perfectly, restarting whatever services as need, as often as needed. You can't make it panic.
It also has more advanced clustering than most people believe exists... A server's full state is replicated in real-time, so a hardware failure doesn't even need to be handled by applications, they just think everything has been running for the past decade...
OpenVMS has ridiculous uptimes, over a decade, even on heavily utilized systems. Far longer than anything else out there.
cron. And it turns out, it has an ACM link in the external links, but it does NOT cite an ACM article, properly or otherwise
Yes, it does cite an ACM article from the late 70s, as the inspiration for improved versions of crond, which performed better, and were extended to all system users, not just root as early crond did.
And is the link related to cron? I'm going with no, because it doesn't sound related
That's just your own bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA.
"Robert Brown, reviewing this [ACM] article, [...] created an implementation [...] and this multi-user cron went into use at Purdue in late 1979."
It seems that rather than all those wiki pages citing ACM publications, somebody from ACM has spammed all those articles with unrelated links.
You checked on ONE out of hundreds, completely misunderstood everything about it, and are jumping to a conclusion that requires paranoid conspiracy fantasies.
How many Slashdot stories are untrue? Does anyone have any idea?
Here's a quick list of Wikipedia articles which probably cite ACM publications:
This is not a cautionary tale about the fundamental unreliability of wikipedia. This is a cautionary tale about the fundamental unreliability of human knowledge. That Taiwanese English professor, those "innumerable blog posts and book reports", that book on Jews and Jesus - all of them accepted the account as given. That makes them *also* unreliable, together with the plethora of tertiary sources that might cite them. The fact that the untruth was initially added to wikipedia and not some other location is irrelevant. The real problem is the tendency of mankind to accept things as given without checking up on it.
That's based on the premise that the model T was less expensive than a horse
No, it's based on the premise of the Model-T being the cheapest possible automobile.
It's not obvious that the automobile would take off, though the piles of horse feces in city streets should have been a hint. But it is obvious that the best chance anybody has, starting a new market, is to go for the least-expensive possible vehicle.
otherwise Ford wouldn't have been the only one in the USA doing it so cheaply/successfully for the better part of 10 years.
Ford found a way to do it very cheaply, that had escaped all others. There were plenty of other car makers out there, and once they adopted the assembly-line model, they started competing with Ford, too.
You can print in a plethora of different materials; this includes metals and extremely hard plastics.
The strength and martial properties of medals comes from the arrangement of the crystal lattices. These are things that 3D printing cannot do.
These are things that 3D printing doesn't do maybe. But most certaintly it is feasible. And once that's achieved, you will be able to create metals with a la carte properties.
The Internet is not powered by experiments on humans. Not even in the DARPA days.
No, websites do NOT experiment on users. Users may experiment on websites, if there's customization, but the rules for good design have not changed either in the past 30 years or the past 3,000. And, to judge from how humans organized carvings and paintings, not the past 30,000 either.
To say that websites experiment on people is tripe. Mouldy tripe. Websites may offer experimental views, surveys on what works, log analysis, etc, but these are statistical experiments on depersonalized aggregate data. Not people.
Experiments on people, especially without consent, is vulgar and wrong. It also doesn't help the website, because knowing what happens doesn't tell you why. Early experiments in AI are littered with extraordinarily bad results for this reason. Assuming you know why, assuming you can casually sketch in the cause merely by knowing one specific effect, is insanity.
Look, I will spell it out to these guys. Stop playing Sherlock Holmes, you only end up looking like Lestrade. Sir Conan Doyle's fictional hero used recursive subdivision, a technique Real Geeks use all the time for everything from decision trees to searching lists. Isolating single factors isn't subdivision because there isn't a single ordered space to subdivide. Scientists mask, yes, but only when dealing with single ordered spaces, and only AFTER producing a hypothesis. And if it involves research on humans, also after filling out a bloody great load of paperwork.
I flat-out refuse to use any website tainted with such puerile nonsense, insofar as I know it to have occurred. No matter how valuable that site may have been, it cannot remain valuable if it is driven by pseudoscience. There's also the matter of respect. If you don't respect me, why should I store any data with you? I can probably do better than most sites out there over a coffee break, so what's in it for me? What's so valuable that I should tolerate being second-class? It had better be damn good.
I'll take a temporary hit on what I can do, if it safeguards my absolute, unconditional control over my virtual persona. And temporary is all it would ever be. There's very little that's truly exclusive and even less that's exclusive and interesting.
The same is true of all users. We don't need any specific website, websites need us. We dictate our own limits, we dictate what safeguards are minimal, we dictate how far a site owner can go. Websites serve their users. They exist only to serve. And unlike with a certain elite class in the Dune series, that's actually true and enforceable.
The old Henry Ford saying goes (not that he necessarily said it) "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses".
Of course faster horses weren't an option. And what were the early cars, other than bare-bones "horseless carriages"? It's not as if the Model-T was a Ferrari in an age of wagons.
Consumers almost always choose "cheaper" when the price is significant. Designing the cheapest possible car, within the confines of the engineering of the day, seems like an obvious choice, and basically what they did.
Half of your customers buy the iPhone. All those people who said, "Oh, I'm going to buy QWERTY," boom, take them out of the equation."
Funny, because Sprint has pushed the iPhone harder than anyone. The cut-rate prices with the iPhone, even on already-cut-rate services like Sprint's Virgin Mobile, are tempting. They practically PAY YOU to take an iPhone. There were articles about how they were contractually required to sell X iPhones from their deal with Apple, but it sounds like they had to undermine the rest of their business to get it done.
I also specified Android, since almost nobody wants feature phones or Windows, which returned just EIGHT. Then I required LTE, which brought it down to just FOUR:
LG Enact (Available on Verizon)
LG Mach (no longer available, Sprint)
LG Optimus F3Q (Available on T-Mobile)
Samsung Stratosphere / Galaxy Metrix 4G (For sale on Amazon, not listed as available by Verizon. YMMV)
and, despite the findings of your rigorous "informal online survey", there actually ISN'T that much demand for such a device.
Sliders made up 30% of US phone sales, a short time ago. There's no mistaking those numbers. There are a large number of people who want them. Perhaps they, like me, are reluctantly sticking with older sliders, waiting for a compelling device to come out. Maybe a few are reluctantly accepting non-sliders, with no other options from work or their preferred carrier.
Hell, I'd have switched to Republic Wireless, or Ting, or others, if they had a compelling Android slider available with their service. I never even considered an iPhone, for their omission. Lots of companies are losing decent chunks of money, for ignoring this market.
I was planning to sign-up with T-Mobile, too, and delayed for being unable to find a slider for myself, and the plan isn't such a good deal with fewer people on it. I later realized they had just one, but their website doesn't have it classified correctly, so you get no results when you narrow it down to Android and Qwerty, but I find their service less-compelling today, so several potential customers were lost.
CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...