...more recent posts
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure, but now it all makes sense to me. For a long time I've been hearing rumors about MacOSX on x86 (intel.) It makes sense in one way since OSX shares so much with FreeBSD, and FreeBSD runs on (among other chips) x86. But it never seemed quite right because Apple's margins are so high on their machines, why would they want to enable cheap Intel based computers? This bit of speculation sounds right to me. This is the "digital hub" that Job's keeps mentioning in a sort of metaphoric way. Here's my further speculation. If apple made a cheap x86 based, airport/ethernet ready computer (an "internet appliance", or "thin client") that would netboot into a remotely hosted OSX session I think they might really have something. For their bottom line, at least, if not for the full good of the customer. What if you bought this really cheap, stylish Apple machine (couple hundred bucks) and then you pay Apple (or Apple/earthlink) $x/month for broadband access. It would seem to you like a regular computer set up. The difference would be that your operating system and programs (but not data) would be running on servers operated by Apple. You would never have to mess with any software. They install, upgrade and keep everything running. Literally ANYBODY could use this machine. But the question is, how much is $x/month?
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure, but now it all makes sense to me. For a long time I've been hearing rumors about MacOSX on x86 (intel.) It makes sense in one way since OSX shares so much with FreeBSD, and FreeBSD runs on (among other chips) x86. But it never seemed quite right because Apple's margins are so high on their machines, why would they want to enable cheap Intel based computers? This bit of speculation sounds right to me. This is the "digital hub" that Job's keeps mentioning in a sort of metaphoric way. Here's my further speculation. If apple made a cheap x86 based, airport/ethernet ready computer (an "internet appliance", or "thin client") that would netboot into a remotely hosted OSX session I think they might really have something. For their bottom line, at least, if not for the full good of the customer. What if you bought this really cheap, stylish Apple machine (couple hundred bucks) and then you pay Apple (or Apple/earthlink) $x/month for broadband access. It would seem to you like a regular computer set up. The difference would be that your operating system and programs (but not data) would be running on servers operated by Apple. You would never have to mess with any software. They install, upgrade and keep everything running. Literally ANYBODY could use this machine. But the question is, how much is $x/month?
Yes yes yes. This is what we need. Jabber-as-middleware (JAM). Jabber is the open source instant messenger project (with fully working/shipping clients and servers.) It interoperates with other IM platforms. It's totally cool. That's jabber. But jabber-as-middleware (JAM) generalizes the idea.
"JAM will give Jabber the ability to send messages between applications, in addition to messages between users. This also means that applications will be able to speak to users, and vice-versa."I'll definitely try to interoperate with this as it develops.
Dizzd seems like the man behind this. I hope he can code as well as he can pitch.
Yes yes yes. This is what we need. Jabber-as-middleware (JAM). Jabber is the open source instant messenger project (with fully working/shipping clients and servers.) It interoperates with other IM platforms. It's totally cool. That's jabber. But jabber-as-middleware (JAM) generalizes the idea.
"JAM will give Jabber the ability to send messages between applications, in addition to messages between users. This also means that applications will be able to speak to users, and vice-versa."I'll definitely try to interoperate with this as it develops.
Dizzd seems like the man behind this. I hope he can code as well as he can pitch.
Mac OSX has gone golden master. I love computer speak. That means they are not changing it anymore (so developers and others who get advanced copies can be sure about the final release a little bit ahead of time.) Should ship on the 24th. Supposedly it will ship with Quicktime 5, but with no DVD support. With no DVD I can't believe that they will be pushing it too hard at first. I think this will be a relatively quiet release, and then in July they will release the "real" final version with more hoopla, more carbonized applications, and full device support. Possibly it will come installed on all new Macs at that point. Or maybe this is one of Jobs' "one more thing..." sort of surprises. Maybe the no DVD line is a bit of misdirection. All I can do is speculate. They've got me just where they want me. Here's a review of (what I think is) the build just before golden master (this is a review of 4k78, and I think GM is 4k83.)
Mac OSX has gone golden master. I love computer speak. That means they are not changing it anymore (so developers and others who get advanced copies can be sure about the final release a little bit ahead of time.) Should ship on the 24th. Supposedly it will ship with Quicktime 5, but with no DVD support. With no DVD I can't believe that they will be pushing it too hard at first. I think this will be a relatively quiet release, and then in July they will release the "real" final version with more hoopla, more carbonized applications, and full device support. Possibly it will come installed on all new Macs at that point. Or maybe this is one of Jobs' "one more thing..." sort of surprises. Maybe the no DVD line is a bit of misdirection. All I can do is speculate. They've got me just where they want me. Here's a review of (what I think is) the build just before golden master (this is a review of 4k78, and I think GM is 4k83.)
The author of this LATimes story claims to have tested a sample of that paper phone. This thing still seems too crazy to be true, but evidently they have (at least) working prototypes. (via /.)
The author of this LATimes story claims to have tested a sample of that paper phone. This thing still seems too crazy to be true, but evidently they have (at least) working prototypes. (via /.)
And I thought yesterday went well. This morning I fought my way around what I thought was the biggest problem I was facing with the new site. Damn, the stars must be lined up for me or something. Anybody know about astrology? Is this a good time for a Taurus? Anyway, I've been searching the net for an answer to this one problem, and all I've found are other people with the same problem. But this morning I finally got it to work. At my level - beginner/advanced-beginner - you never really "solve" any major problems, you just find ways around them. I guess that's what they call "hacking". It's a "hack" (instead of a "fix" or a "solution") because it doesn't really solve the problem, it just routes around it, and often inelegantly. But if it works I guess it's O.K. I think a lot of craftsmen/engineers have this sort of attitude. It's an outlook I aspire to. People can theorize all they want, but who has the running code? Somebody else may have a more sophisticated approach, and they may be able to tell you why, but if their solution doesn't work yet, then what good is it? In this spirit I'll point to the Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate. This is the mailing list debate between young Linus Torvalds (upstart linux creator) with the (then) most respected mind in the academic field of operating system research. A little technical, but skip those parts, and just read the juicy conflict parts. There is a real lesson in there. The "best" product is not necessarily the best product. The best product is the one that ends up working for the most people, not the one that is the most intellectually pure. Good good stuff. I love that linus signs his stuff 'Linus "Benedict" Torvalds'.
I can't believe how much work I'm getting done. There's something you won't here me say too often.