Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Rebuttal, Satellite, Patents
RTFPrint An Anonymous Coward writes: "As I'm sure is true of many others among the Slashdot faithful, I was ecstatic to see the culmination of this story earlier in the week. It seemed that Comcast's leadership had experienced a sudden and uncharacteristic attack of common sense. As a former @Home subscriber being moved to Comcast's network, I'd balked at the new terms of service Comcast required (particularly the part about giving Comcast permission to track my browsing). So, if Comcast swears that it won't track users' browsing anymore, why does it still ask for permission to? Exhibit 1: Comcast's "Subscriber Agreement". May I direct your attention to section 5, entitled "Collection, Use and Disclosure Of Information On Subscriber Use", in which Comcast requests that you give permission for them to track (and sell) information about your browsing habits. I particularly like the part about how collecting information on users' browsing is "necessary to provide the Service". Note also that this exact "Subscriber Agreement" is required for ex-@Home users to move to Comcast's network. How fortunate that I just last week got notified about the avaiability of DSL in my area...."
It's not as simple as averaging "W" and "Y." marktwain writes: "Gene Steinberg probably has the most sensible rebuttal on his website http://www.macnightowl.com/ to Robert Cringely's recent article which Slashdot linked to, commented about, and which deserves a rebuttal. The whole idea of porting OS X is not only inane but is an idea which was flogged to death a year ago. And if Cringely's article wasn't bad enough, Slashdot kicked off with the equally inane "but Apples are so expensive" garbage. In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other."
Getting the most of sky-high satellite costs. Jason Nunnelly sent in a note that he's updated his information on connecting a home network to the Net using satellite, a feat that can be difficult and expensive. Of course, when all your options are difficult and expensive, it might look like a pretty good idea. Read this information if you want to know how to save money on the connection and the hardware required, and some sobering words about technical support. (Check those hourly rates, too.)
Novel idea: require patents to have one. Cecil Bumfluff writes: "An update to a recent /. story regarding European proposals for software patents. It seems that unlike the US system, the vendor must prove they have made a "technical contribution to the state of the art". This seems a lot tougher than current US patent law. Check out the story at The Register"
Judge Dredd, or Judge Milquetoast? spellcheckur writes: "Remember the ACME Rent-a-car and GPS fiasco? The Boston Globe is reporting that ACME has been ordered to cease the practice and refund the money. One of the interesting conclusions in the article, they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging. Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
i use the internet for only a few things... and the main use is running servers.
satellite is basically worthless... we can't think of the internet as a media outlet, it is an interactive environment... users aren't 'surfing the web' hoping for content just be spewed at them, they want to interact, and the uplink of most satellites makes even posting a lot of form data a problem.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
OS X on intel is not the answer. Mac holds about 5% of the market. Well that is what I have been told It sure as heck seems bigger but lets say that 5% is true. What can appple do to get more then 5% and still keep control of hardware, and make all these OS X on Intel freakes happy.
:)
,end of story.
2 simple steps
Step 1.
Make a head less Imac with no super drive as the low end. the super drive adds like $400 to the cost of the system and the LCD adds between 400 - 600. so if we cut those out you are left with a good sub 600$ system that will run X.
Step 2.
There is no step two.
This is the only way for apple to get more the 5% of the market they will have to win in the sub 500 system area. Think about it, if it had a TV hook up on it and a simple remote , it would be the digital hub
When your cheapest system that is current is a laptop you have done something wrong.
A Macintosh is nothing more than a giant hardware key. Apple doesn't have to worry about installing pirated copies of Mac OS simply because you can't get Mac compatible hardware unless you buy it from them (with a Mac OS license, of course). I am surprised that they don't give the new software away. After all, what better way to sell new Apple hardware than to write software that is to bloated to use on your old hardware. That's why you can guarantee that new versions of OS X aren't going to run any better on G3s than they do now.
Apple is a hardware company, the only reason they write software is to give their hardware something to do.
As far as porting to x96 is concerned, Apple knows that the x86 OS market is getting a little crowded as it is. Between Linux, FreeBSD, and a handful of versions of Windows there is something for everyone. Linux and FreeBSD are having a hard time getting a run and they are available free of charge, come with source, and are actually getting pretty darn useable. Mac OS X wouldn't have a chance. Sure the interface is slick, but it won't run existing Windows software (and it wouldn't run existing Mac software either), it wouldn't support very much hardware (probably less than Linux), and you wouldn't be able to get it preinstalled. Bill and Co. would make sure of that.
Apple has a fairly large market of users who are more than happy to pay premium prices for PC hardware, and they are happy with that. If Apple really wanted to see a Mac OS rennaisance what they need to do is price their hardware so that it is price competitive. Otherwise, no dice.
that sort of reminds me of this:
In late 1999, Apple CEO Steve Jobs telephoned Stephens(Adaptec CEO). "I want the source code for your CD burner on my desk today, or you'll never do business with Apple again," Jobs said.
Jobs seemingly (and boldly) wanted to examine the source code for possible inclusion in Apple's forthcoming OS, but Stephens, unwilling to give up proprietary information, politely explained that Adaptec would be happy to work out a licensing plan instead. So Stephens said, "With a healthy share of the Macintosh CD software market already and not a whole lot of business done directly with Apple these days, doesn't it seem...."
Click. Jobs hung up. Stephens was baffled.
From PC Magazine
Jobs makes me laugh. That takes some big rocks.
So they charge you $200 more if you get a speeding ticket. Do you pay it? Well, there you are, they charge more because they can.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
1) Since when does use of computers mean taking them apart and futzing with their innards? Aside from the occasional installation of RAM or a new hard-drive, I don't feel the urge to take my computer apart. And I certainly consider myself someone who "actually uses computers".
2) "Apple is a for profit company" Of course they are! What viable company (aside from charitable entities) isn't? Do you expect them to give their stuff away? They aren't some late 90s pie-in-the-sky dot-com style outfit that relies more on trendiness and ideology than a business plan.
3) Just because Apple isn't completely "Open Source/Free Software" (although with MacOS X they've embraced it far more than Microsoft) doesn't mean they aren't striving for a better computing experience. Ditto for their trying to turn a profit. What do you think their plan for making a profit is? It's by producing a superior product, both hardware and software. And in my opinion they are doing just that.
Guys, any idea what position the DirecPC satellite is in? I've got a second hand direcpc PCI card, and a spare single LNB...
Not that I'm up to coding anything close to the kernel code that would probably be necessary, but I'd at least like a stab at it.