I liked OS9 better. I never understood the move to OSX, which instantly made all OS9 software perform worse or not perform at all.
It is nice that Apple tried to make UNIX users a little more at home with a BSD-like userland. But BSD, Linux, Plan9 all have better kernels than Apple.
I now have GB's of RAM and most times I have no shortage of physical memory; I have more than enough to run all my small, statically compiled programs in their own memory space.
While I know the kernel is still designed for it, I have not used a dedicated "swap partition" in a decade.
Hardware has come so far from the limitations of the old days; it is my dream to have the option to compile a UNIX-like kernel with virtual memory "disabled".
BIOS just runs whatever is in the first 512 byte sector.
Unless it fits in 512 bytes this is not a "kernel" but is just instructions to jump to another address, where there is more small bootstrap code that loads another program, maybe a bootloader that loads another program, maybe a kernel.
Those who multiboot Windows with some other OS that uses disklabels may notice that Windows expects to always be the first OS. Any other bootstrap code put into that first sector will be overwritten by a Windows install.
Does anyone disagree that UEFI has the capability to be an OS itself?
If it is only used as a "BIOS" then is it unreasonably adding the surface area for bugs and attacks? Is it much larger and more complex than legacy BIOS?
Is this trade-off proportional to the benefits it provides: obviating need to for developers to understand backwards compatibility?
You should not close apps because you may interfere with tracking your location and other data collection.
Data collection is necessary to enrich your "user experience". When we know what you want we can fulfill your every wish! Just say "OK, Google". It will be great!
The developers behind this crap do not hear from satisfied users. Because the truth is no one really cares about this stuff. They care about things like reception and battery life...
except for some nerds like the ones who comment on HN who can easily point out all the stupidity of these "business" models.
When users are like puppets on a string, helplessly dependent. When there are no alternatives, no competition. Is that a business? And I suppose shooting fish in a barrel is game of skill.
Oddly enough, Googlers read HN comments and frequently defend the company, speaking only for themselves of course. Why should they care that anyone sees Android for what it really is? Whining nerds do not count, right? So why pay attention to what they think?
If developers of Android and iOS had any respect, if they had a conscience, then they would not be usurping people's computing resources for their own ends. Sure, users will be oblivious to what is going on and they will not complain. That does not mean it's OK to do these things.
Ever tried bitlbee? Not sure how well it's keeping up with the new protocols but years ago it was a way to consolidate at least a few of the older ones into a single application. Also not sure why this idea has not been replicated. Maybe it has.
You are allowed to be concerned. I probably read too much into your comment. But I think you all understand my point. I was concerned that some mortals might be scared off from experimenting with NaCl. "Experts only."
Some years ago, there was another fellow who wrote a set of NaCl utilities that were very simple, UNIX filters. While I was "scared of the code" because he's not a renown cryptographer (does he need to be?), I was thankful for a simple, working example. There really weren't any publicly available at the time.
I really appreciate when people share these self-learning projects.
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
I liked OS9 better. I never understood the move to OSX, which instantly made all OS9 software perform worse or not perform at all.
It is nice that Apple tried to make UNIX users a little more at home with a BSD-like userland. But BSD, Linux, Plan9 all have better kernels than Apple.