flomo

19 ms·

331.
by flomo 2y ago
Agreed, but on the other hand I never understood the business model of the for-profit NPM Corporation, or why Microsoft would buy them out, so there has to be some angle here. Maybe they cannot solve all of "the supply chain", but
332.
by flomo 2y ago
For the most part, this wasn't an individual problem. Corporations purchased these pretty expensive Pentium computers through a distributor, and just got them replaced by the vendor, per their support contract. I've been in some c
333.
by flomo 2y ago
You make a great point, but I think we're going to see stuff like Microsoft selling 'supported NPM' to corps, rather than a zillion volunteers showing up to do monkey packaging work for Debian. (In fact, inserting some rando
334.
by flomo 2y ago
> Long term support Intuitively, this seems opposite, because you could obviously 'mutate' (or mutilate) your Debian system until the updates break. Isolating user changes should make updates easier, not harder. Also MacOS uses
335.
by flomo 2y ago
I was looking for this comment, because rake is great. One big thing is it never felt good imposing Ruby on a (say) a JS project (and I'm not sure of the current state of macos default ruby), so next time this comes up, I will be takin
336.
by flomo 2y ago
A lot of production VB apps were written the same way. Array was the only data structure.
337.
by flomo 2y ago
I was going to post about something, but according to Wikipedia, the IBM 486SLC found in super slow PS/2 crap computers had nothing to do with the Cyrix 486SLC. Learn something new everyday.
338.
by flomo 2y ago
Please use regular hyperlinks so I can open in a new tab. (The visit button should probably open a new tab by default so users aren't taken away from your site.)
339.
by flomo 2y ago
I recall being surprised to see people using a Redbox in the grocery store. Like, wow, (a) this company still exists, and (b) ppl still watch DVDs. And that was years ago. I think it's not unlikely the company was already in total zomb
340.
by flomo 2y ago
They might have had the most perfectly developed decommissioning process. And nobody is going to care when their paychecks stop showing up, and everything suddenly gets trucked-off into receivership. Given the era and constraints, I don&#x2
341.
by flomo 2y ago
Yes, but old computers also do not do that, because they no longer work. (And if they do, it's not with some 30 year old hard drive.) Maybe 80% of the working computers I have put on the shelf do not even boot after a few years. It&#x2
342.
by flomo 2y ago
Seconding info about "unix2". I used to pour over the trade tabloids, and I've never heard of this. Novell bought UNIX and has some grand plans for "SuperNOS", which also never shipped. It certainly wasn't anyt
343.
by flomo 2y ago
Yep, someone posted this to HN: https://github.com/cmod/websters-1913
344.
by flomo 2y ago
Yep, Internet Explorer had this 'security zone' feature which privileged localhost/file urls, except it was too easy to confuse it about what 'zone' it was running in, leading to endless security bugs. Probably the
345.
by flomo 2y ago
Agreed. And one could argue that Unix wasn't really popular because of the "philosophy", but because it would get out of the way and let you run big monolithic applications like OracleDB or CAD software or even Emacs and etc.
346.
by flomo 2y ago
Of course, I think the guy I responded to edited his post.
347.
by flomo 2y ago
The issue with UNIX on PCs was the $1000 or whatever licensing cost. Just as some trivia, Novell bought UNIX System V R4 from AT&T and planned to merge it with Netware to create "SuperNOS", which would have been a direct compe
348.
by flomo 2y ago
Windows NT Server pretty much stomped Netware, so you seem very confused. Are you thinking of OS/2 LAN Manager? NetWare was stable running vanilla file/print services (just don't load the AppleTalk module!), not so good with
349.
by flomo 2y ago
Yep, Netware ran entirely in Ring 0. In linux terminology it was a kernel with no user space, and NLMs were kernel modules. Very fast for file serving, but any application could crash the system. Stability was largely a result of lots of up
350.
by flomo 2y ago
> or worse yet, two monitors connected to two different GPUs This was a great feature of the Macintosh II in 1987. Sad that it's not ubiquitous yet. (Even modern Macs snap apps to one monitor or the other, so no video walls.)
351.
by flomo 2y ago
Maybe one of the untold stories of the 'Browser Wars' was how Microsoft went from 80% to ~0% partially because their home page was all awful tabloid trash. Nothing new for MSN.
352.
by flomo 2y ago
25 years ago, Microsoft was already writing complex desktop apps using Javascript. That was a major feature of Windows 98, you could have a "HTML UI". (ofc they made it easy to call into COM for the busy stuff.) I've never us
353.
by flomo 2y ago
Good finds everyone! Other than LocalTalk (which was 'normal'), I don't believe the old MacOS had any OOB support for serial transfers. Thus Clarisworks or ZTerm or etc was needed.
354.
by flomo 2y ago
It's highly unlikely any terminal software would be installed on an old Mac, even if it had a modem. (Although I don't know about Clarisworks.) It was counter to the whole mentality. There was a bootstrapping problem where you nee
355.
by flomo 2y ago
Possibly, this was after it was spun-off as a separate company.
356.
by flomo 2y ago
Also, SF MTA and CTA have/had offices there, so it could be convenient to negotiate with local officials. But yeah, it was originally a BoFA IT bunker, never intended to be a nice building.
357.
by flomo 2y ago
Trivia at this point. But the Oracle Network Computer was a low-end x86 box running FreeBSD and a full-screen Netscape Navigator. Very much a product of its time. (WebTV, later purchased by Microsoft, was the more successful product in this
358.
by flomo 2y ago
Very nice looking in my american eyes
359.
by flomo 3y ago
For that type of employee, it would all fly under the standard deduction anyway, so the IRS would not care. (Unless you had a side-business making $$ on this.) This is the first Raymond Chen post I've read which seems kinda dumb and po
360.
by flomo 3y ago
No real doubt here this guy isn't 100% serious, so thanks for the explanation.

More ›