Comments on: The World Wide Telescope http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:13:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Jason http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73625 Jason Thu, 15 May 2008 08:48:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73625 I've just completed the installation of World Wide Telescope and rebooted ready to try it - it CRASHED straight away - exactly as you would expect from any Microsoft product. I think MS DOS was the only stable program they made..! Well, when it's finally got working, perhaps it can be modified so we can fly spacecraft around this new virtual world with an assortment of laser weaponary, shields, ECM, missiles, hyperdrive, etc. just like the original computer game "Elite" for the Acorn BBC Micro. Those were the days. But can we have a minigun fitted this time please?! I’ve just completed the installation of World Wide Telescope and rebooted ready to try it - it CRASHED straight away - exactly as you would expect from any Microsoft product. I think MS DOS was the only stable program they made..!

Well, when it’s finally got working, perhaps it can be modified so we can fly spacecraft around this new virtual world with an assortment of laser weaponary, shields, ECM, missiles, hyperdrive, etc. just like the original computer game “Elite” for the Acorn BBC Micro. Those were the days. But can we have a minigun fitted this time please?!

]]> By: john http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73624 john Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:32:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73624 First was wikisky, then googlesky, now ms-sky. What's the rush out there? New race to space? First was wikisky, then googlesky, now ms-sky. What’s the rush out there? New race to space?

]]> By: silver http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73623 silver Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:29:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73623 How is this different from Celestia some of you ask? Well, watch the damn video then and you will know. Plus all this MS bashing is damn annoying you narrow minded people. How about this, think of this product as some new product from a company you don't know. It will make you happier and more open minded. How is this different from Celestia some of you ask? Well, watch the damn video then and you will know. Plus all this MS bashing is damn annoying you narrow minded people. How about this, think of this product as some new product from a company you don’t know. It will make you happier and more open minded.

]]> By: James http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73622 James Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:23:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73622 Hey guys, the topic of this entry isn't "Microsoft Windows, discuss." Hey guys, the topic of this entry isn’t “Microsoft Windows, discuss.”

]]> By: ClanRewired http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73621 ClanRewired Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:51:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73621 Sounds like some Frippertronics playing in the background, maybe some reusage of the sounds Fripp created for Microsoft's Vista? Sounds like some Frippertronics playing in the background, maybe some reusage of the sounds Fripp created for Microsoft’s Vista?

]]> By: TheBlackCat http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73620 TheBlackCat Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:08:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73620 <blockquote>Re: “Microsoft builds good operating systems”; Something that takes five minutes to boot (only three months after a fresh install) is not a good operating system.</blockquote> How did you manage that? No matter how screwed up I got windows it never got took more than 2 or 3 minutes to boot, and that was usually cut down to 30 seconds to a minute by shutting down unnecessary auto-start software..

Re: “Microsoft builds good operating systems”; Something that takes five minutes to boot (only three months after a fresh install) is not a good operating system.

How did you manage that? No matter how screwed up I got windows it never got took more than 2 or 3 minutes to boot, and that was usually cut down to 30 seconds to a minute by shutting down unnecessary auto-start software..

]]> By: TheBlackCat http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73619 TheBlackCat Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:06:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/29/the-world-wide-telescope/#comment-73619 It is difficult to say whether you could consider Os X is a "derivative" of Unix. It is based on the Darwin Kernel, which itself is based on the Mach kernel, which itself was designed as a replacement for BSD. These are considered "Unix-like" in that they behave in a similar manner to and have design features based on Unix (to varying extents) even though (as near as I can tell) they do not contain any actual Unix code. Linux, the other most popular Unix-like kernel, is similar in that it is designed to operate in a manner similar to (but not identical to) Unix without having any actual Unix code. Solaris is similar as well, while BSD does actually have Unix code in it (although it is not all of its code and it is not identical to Unix either). None of these operating system are identical to Unix or to each other either in their code or in their implementation. I really wouldn't say they are "variants" of Unix or "derivatives" of Unix but rather kernels that are more or less loosely based on the principles behind Unix. You cannot, for instance, take a program from Linux and run it on Os X (or OpenSolaris, Unix, BSD, etc). It is not just a matter of recompiling, there has to be specific changes to take into account fundamental differences between the kernels. On the other hand, assuming you have the right libraries and kernel parameters, a program written for Red Hat Linux will run (maybe needing recompiling) on Debian Linux, for instance. Many (but not all) programs compiled on Debian will run without even recompiling on Ubuntu Linux (which is truly a derivative of Debian). So I think it would be best to say that these or a series of kernels based on the same general principles, and using varying amounts of some more specific principles (and that use the same syntax for commandline). Trying to somehow say that Os X is equivalent to Linux, Solaris, BSD, and other popular kernels used for servers is not really accurate. There are reasons people don't use Os X for servers but do use other commercial unix-like operating systems. In fact to be unix-like it doesn't even have to be a kernel or os. You can even make windows unix-like by using cygwin, which allows you to use unix software that is compiled to run on it. It isn't an emulator, it is just an implementation of the components necessary to make windows unix-compatible. It is difficult to say whether you could consider Os X is a “derivative” of Unix. It is based on the Darwin Kernel, which itself is based on the Mach kernel, which itself was designed as a replacement for BSD. These are considered “Unix-like” in that they behave in a similar manner to and have design features based on Unix (to varying extents) even though (as near as I can tell) they do not contain any actual Unix code. Linux, the other most popular Unix-like kernel, is similar in that it is designed to operate in a manner similar to (but not identical to) Unix without having any actual Unix code. Solaris is similar as well, while BSD does actually have Unix code in it (although it is not all of its code and it is not identical to Unix either). None of these operating system are identical to Unix or to each other either in their code or in their implementation.

I really wouldn’t say they are “variants” of Unix or “derivatives” of Unix but rather kernels that are more or less loosely based on the principles behind Unix. You cannot, for instance, take a program from Linux and run it on Os X (or OpenSolaris, Unix, BSD, etc). It is not just a matter of recompiling, there has to be specific changes to take into account fundamental differences between the kernels. On the other hand, assuming you have the right libraries and kernel parameters, a program written for Red Hat Linux will run (maybe needing recompiling) on Debian Linux, for instance. Many (but not all) programs compiled on Debian will run without even recompiling on Ubuntu Linux (which is truly a derivative of Debian).

So I think it would be best to say that these or a series of kernels based on the same general principles, and using varying amounts of some more specific principles (and that use the same syntax for commandline). Trying to somehow say that Os X is equivalent to Linux, Solaris, BSD, and other popular kernels used for servers is not really accurate. There are reasons people don’t use Os X for servers but do use other commercial unix-like operating systems.

In fact to be unix-like it doesn’t even have to be a kernel or os. You can even make windows unix-like by using cygwin, which allows you to use unix software that is compiled to run on it. It isn’t an emulator, it is just an implementation of the components necessary to make windows unix-compatible.

]]>