Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Avocates Open Sourcing OS X
xzvf writes "Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels." From the article: "That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes. Let's start at the beginning. There's been a lot of fuss over Apple's rollout of the unsupported Boot Camp product, which lets Mac users run Microsoft Windows easily on an Intel-based Macintosh. I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."
There have been several instances where I would have liked to step into a Cocoa API call to see what's going on behind the scenes, but was not able to. The Cocoa API is part of what the Mac experience is built upon, so Apple is not going to open up this library. But from a developer's standpoint, it is frustrating to have it closed.
'nuff said.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Let me share with you friends, the deep, dark, scary secret that Starbucks is keeping. A secret so shocking that when it is released on the world, it will literally change things forever! I've only recently figured this out myself, so pay attention as I walk you through the sordid details.
Like many super-intelligent-people-in-the-computer-industry
But then I got to thinking. What does Starbucks need with drive through windows? I mean, they're in the coffee business, not the fast food industry. People come into Starbucks to enjoy the environment, not grab their cup and run! Then it hit me! Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. But how will they do it? Will they allow you to place your Venti cup in a cup holder and allow the smell to drift across your Caddilac? No!
There can be only one explanation: Starbucks is going to make cars. Nothing else makes sense! So two years from now when you're driving your Starbucks-mobile, remember this. You heard it here first. --John C. Dvorak
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Dvorak should buy Ubuntu. Or maybe Novell.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I frequent a message board frequented by members of the gaming journalism press and developers. Upon the Boot Camp announcement, about ten of them immediately bought new Macs.
All of them, to a man, spend all of their time in OSX. They only boot Windows to play games, but do everything else in OSX.
Dvorak still doesn't get it.
How would open sourcing OS X make an epic battle with Linux? If anything, asuming the license was favourable, it would only benefit Linux and projects like KDE and Gnome, wouldn't it?
I advocate that banks open their vaults to anyone who wants money. I advocate that car dealers leave their keys in the cars for anyone to take them. I advocate that restaurants make their food free. All of these things might kill the businesses involved, but it certainly would be nice for me and for other people who'd rather not pay for things.
David
I often enjoy reading Dvorak, but this is just nonsense. Apple's usability comes from their software. Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say. They buy it because of the OS. Apple charges a premium for their hardware, but people are willing to pay this premium because of the software. Apple comes closer to "it just works" because of OS X, not because of the nifty design of the boxes or because they supposedly use "high quality" parts.
Switching to Windows would mean two things: 1) The differentiation factor for Apple decreases, meaning that they would have to compete more on price, and 2) Their support costs would go up because of the number of calls they'd get from users with Windows problems. Hello, spyware anyone? Not a problem for Apple now, but would change instantly with a Windows conversion.
I still think that Apple is slowly making the move to put OS X on generic PC boxes (and eventually more OEMs). Only they're doing it slowly and quietly, so as not to awaken the sleeping giant with the massive war chest. Apple could make a move for just desktop share, as they haven't shown any interest in becoming a large-volume server OS company. Let MS and other *nixes fight over the servers, Apple would be happy with selling boxes to just the end users and software licenses to OEMs and third parties.
They did. They called it "Darwin". It had everything that Linux has and had; it runs GNU software like everything else and is capable of GNOME or KDE. It hasn't performed very well.
Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels.
How about we Open Source Dvorak's articles and let some other insane ramblings ensue, in fact, I have a few of my own.
First, I want a epic battle between humans and robots complete with protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Dvorak is trolling again.
The reason Apple is 'so great' is because they control the whole experience. What you are buying is the hardware + apps +OS.
If you sell the OS on any old PC hardware (as many have asked for) then suddenly Apple loses one of the legs or their product.
If you open the OS then you lose another leg.
The reason everyone wants apple to do these things is because the quality they can get when they control all those things. (no they dont control all the apps, obviously, but they provide the basic user with everything they would need in an easy to use package)
I am so tired of people saying: I love apple OS, but i will never pay for it until they sell it for my shitty dell hardware! Well, then it wouldn't be the Apple that is able to be so high quality, and you wouldn't want it anyway!
So, back to my original point: Dvorak is a tired hack, and he is trolling for pagehits. Please stop putting his crap up here and helping him out!
No there wasn't.
Getting OS X onto PCs might be even more doable today, since researchers are reporting that as many as half of the business-owned PCs in operation now may not be capable of running Microsoft Vista.
And any random crap hardware that can't run Vista should have no trouble running Mac OS X! Piece of cake.
The Boot Camp product is pure test marketing. It's so obviously test marketing that it's hard to believe that people are foolish enough to get worked up about it.
Yes, Apple announced that this functionality will be built into the next version of Mac OS X, because they want to wait and see how people react before they decide whether it's a good idea. Because if they had already decided it was a good idea, they would have done something differently.
Does Windows works well on Mac hardware, or not? The idea here is to put it into the wild and see what happens in a support-free environment where Apple has no responsibility to help make it work.
Does Windows work well on PC hardware, or not? That's debatable, but obviously Apple thinks they can make it work just as well on Mac hardware. Does it yet? No. That's why Boot Camp is in beta. There are bugs they need to work out. Some of them are documented.
Apple needs to analyze the reaction to Windows on a Mac. This includes seeing whether there is massive rejection of the idea--protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming. In other words, can the community at large live with the idea of Windows running on a Mac? That cannot be known or assumed without this test.
Nope, it can't be known. Absolutely no way to even guess. It's not like you could ask people. You know, take a survey. And I mean a real one, not PC Magazine's equivalent of a Slashdot poll.
Much of the positive reaction, though, seems to stem from the mistaken supposition that having Windows on a Mac will make OS X look better by comparison, so people will flock to OS X.
Really? That's not the reaction I've been hearing. The two reactions I've been hearing are:
I didn't bother continuing to the next page.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In the words of Peter Griffin: "This plan is brilliant it's retarded!"
What's crazy to me is this might be a brilliant marketing strategy to divert some attention away from Microsoft. It's so crazy it just might work...
Developers: We can use your help.
Great, so Apple can give away either its best product (or it's number one hardware advertisement, depending on if you think Apple is a hardware company, or a software company), into a hardware environment it can't control, thereby eroding its famous stability.
Great business plan. Apple would be insane to turn OSX into an open source product. The market has repeatedly shown what happens to high end wintel box manufacturers.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
How can I get a job where all I have to do is write an article with no backup or substantiation beyond my own knowledge and speculation about an idea that I shat out this morning on the toliet? Not only that, how can I get a job where I get to keep it after doing this every week for years?
All of these ideas have the following in common with Dvorak's "advocating" opensourcing all of OS X:
Crow T. Trollbot
If the /. staff is going to continue posting Dvorak articles regarding Apple as if they have any value, can my Batboy links please be accepted for the science category?
I mean if you're going to post bullocks like this in one category it's only fair to accept them in all categories!
...oh, wait, that was just the good dream I had last night.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
"That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes."
Now it all makes sense. I've been labouring under the misapprehension that the main goal of large software/hardware companies like Apple and Microsoft was to make money. It's taken the observations of a true genius to make me realise that the true objective of any such company should be to do 'interesting battles' with Linux. Maybe with light sabres.
He is not picking out of a hat. But his manati's that are working for him picked the OSX and Open Source balls this week.
[+] dvorak, troll, moron, osx, stupid (tagging beta)
Dvorak != Dvorak keyboard layout
I did my part by not actually clicking on the link and giving it one more page hit.
Stay tuned for new sig...
This notion is unmitigated nonsense.
Apple is not looking to unseat Windows as the OS king or are they trying to become ubiquitous. Apple is cultivating a boutique culture with their products and they are being very successful. Starbucks charges an unreasoble amout for coffee but people pay because they like to be associated with the Starbuck images. Apple is similar but not the same. They actually produce superior products (OS X, iPod) but they want to maitain the hip and cool vibe that is associated with them. The company is doing very well at the moment. I don't understand the "death knell" attitudes of some comentators. Why on earth would they alter OS X? They are making a fortune with it.
I think Boot Camp was introduced to shut people up. To end the Will-Windows-Run-on-Macs speculation. I firly believe that virtualization is in the card in the near future. Boot Camp is a temporary release to bridge the gap.
If you set up the site, I will happily contribute idiocy worthy of The Man Himself.
Here are the titles of some of my brilliant future submissions:
"Microsoft Should Buy IBM"
"Apple Should Buy Apple"
"SCO Should Buy Enron"
"IBM Should Buy All Copies Of Mariah Carey's 'Glitter'"
"The Dvorak Keyboard Layout Should Buy Me"
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Anyone else get the feeling that Dvorak's articles are written by manatee's in a large tank filled with idea balls...?
Apple + Open source + War
"Oh, the makings of another great Dvorak article, I can see it now..."
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Why to make the master Steve Jobs happy of course. Why else would his cult follow him thru the desert, traveling with the burning bush of money as Apple flirts with Motorola, IBM, Intel and coming soon "embryonic" stem cells.
Seeing the cult of mac turn overnight from Wintel haters to clapping with glee over bootcamp only proves that Conviction, is in the Apple Menu.
"Humans are considered to be primitive, the third smartest species on Earth"
Face it folks, Unless Apple sells an integrated system, they can't compete. If they sell hardware only, they get killed on price. If they sell just the OS, M$ kills them with its market power. Apple can do something M$ can't, they can sell an integrated computing system that basically "just works."
The boot camp strategy seems to be a way to allow someone to own and use an apple while still retaining their legacy M$ software. Eventually the customer will abandon the M$ partition for everything but that application (game) that still doesn't run on apple. Meanwhile, Apple is selling overpriced very reliable computer systems to people who discover that computers don't have to crash on a regular basis.
At some point the developers will notice this fact and provide programs that run on both platforms. When that happens M$ dies (or it adapts).
David,
/. readers who 1) recognize satire and 2)have no mod points at this moment, please accept our apology for the idiots who modded your post "flamebait." They do not speak for us and hopefully they'll get slapped down during meta-moderation.
On behalf of the legions of
Mod points should only be given to those who can demonstrate basic literacy.
What's insane is that he gets paid big money to write this kind of drivel. This proves that the "invisible hand of the market" is not just invisible, but stupid.
Dvorak just likes to make inane random predictions that never, and I mean never, come true. His column inches are dedicated to shots in the dark which don't deserve the time of day. He's a troll with a website who claims to be an expert, and loves making wilder and crazier predictions with a distinct Apple fetish
Apple has the best sales they've ever had, they have no reason to open source it, and it's just... nonsense to anyone.
Looking at Slashdot posts he thinks
* Apple is going to move to Windows
* Microsoft should buy Opera
* Apple are promoted by news people more than they are used
* the Creative Commons license is worth trashing
* That Apple's move to Intel will harm Linux
* Google is planning a web browser
* Apple should discontinue the Mac
* TiVo is a way of stealing programming
Make your own opinions. Mine is that he's a poor troll. Okay, so he correctly predicted that Apple would move to Intel. But if you fire enough shots and make enough random predictions, you're eventually going to get one on the bullseye.
He's been wishing for/predicting Apple will die for about 18 years now.
When the Mac was first introduced, he was the guy who stated that the graphical user interface was "stupid" and "toy like".
Every article he writes is basically a suggestion for Apple to commit suicide. He actually wrote an article saying that if you used an iBook you were gay.
Here's my suggestion to Dvorak. If you want to be more competitive as a writer, start taking cyanide pills immediately.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Ok, so my reaction to Dvorak was "yeah, but no, but".
Apple's real gambit in regards to Windows is almost too transparent. Boot Camp is the second step towards a true virtualization layer for OSX that will blend Windows and OSX. The move to Intel was the first.
Given that virtualization is becoming so cruicial in so many areas with VM Ware, Solaris zones, and whatever HP call it, Apple's Boot Camp only makes sense. Multi-core processors make virtualization even more attractive to those craving processore density. With the Intel-Mac's lack of BIOS, Boot Camp provides the bridge between OS X and Windows for now, requiring reboots to toggle between operating system.
The abstraction of the BIOS is a key idea to take away from Boot Camp. The abstraction at least proves that Windows will run at that layer. The next step is likely to be a greater abstraction that will allow a Windows "session" to run inside of OSX without requiring a reboot, possibly similar to Virtual PC but with better performance. At this point, users would be able to access all features of both operating systems, albeit with some difficulty.
Eventually, the logical move would be to a complete virtualization layer in which multiple operating systems can simultaneously share the system and interact with one another. I wouldn't be surprised to see a virtualization system that allows easy "drag and drop" from OS X into Windows and vice versa.
This is probably a more realistic view than Dvorak, as it gets people onto OS X without the worry of not being able to use Windows. Could we see some kind of "WinOS/2"-like bundling in the future? Probably not to that extent, but with similar functionality.
Here is OSX, need to run Windows? Insert CD and click here, now your windows appas run inside what appear to be OSX windows.
So according to Dvorak, Apple's business plan is:
1. Build Windows PCs
2. Open source OS X
3. ???
4. Profit!
Can't wait until he-with-much-wisdom fills us in on Step 3. I bet it has something to do with switching the iTunes Music Store to WMA and free iPods.
Certainly the recent rise of OS X on the back of the iPod has hurt desktop Linux, but these two desktop OS's appeal to completely different market segments so they are natural allies, not adversaries.
Linux attack MS from the low-end and is particularly strong in corporate, third world, and limited use, environments. It is flexible and is appealling technically and politically, but is quite rough and not ready for the average consumer.
OS X is the opposite. It is high margin, high sytle, and slick. It is perfect for the brand-concious, reasonably wealthy, consumer who wants everything to work together easily.
I'm not suggesting that Apple would intentionally help Linux, anymore than MS would, but Apple and Linux are not exactly on a collision course!
Honestly, my favorite part of this article is this:
"I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."
What he actually said was that Apple would ditch OS X for Windows. What Apple actually did was allow people who want to run Windows -as well- to install it on a second partition, obviously with the intention of providing a safety net to would-be switchers.
I like John, but I'd rather he not try to restate what he previously stated to make himself look smarter than he really is.
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
... of HW and SW that really makes it. I get an iBook for $800 that just works. No parts to stick out and snap, stock ports to support 90% of the work I'll need, a lid and sleep controls that actually listen to each other, instant wake from sleep, foolproof wireless HW and SW... in short, clean and effective HW, clean and effective SW. The two together are bliss.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Wouldn't it be great to have a job where you could write any outrageously mindless article on your laptop, moronic stories concocted during lengthy shit sessions - and get paid for it! Then millions of angry slashdotters will hear about it and maybe click a certain link, and this will generate advertising revenue for PC World. Brilliant! I want to do it, but I would use a pseudonym.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Is this guy just throwing darts at a board with theoretical possibilities to come up with this stuff?
It's actually a Mad Lib.
So back to the hardware. Whatever premium you think exists (I disagree) on Mac Gear is what my good friend and I call "Worth Every Penny." I've seen an iBook that a caring mother drove over with her BMW X5, sure the LCD was cracked but system still booted in FireWire mode and I was able to retrieve all the documents they needed. My own 12" alBook has been used and abused by myself since they were released and through nearly 2 years now (3 years on an iBook) of my sister's college education without a single failure. I'm kind of upset that I even bothered buying AppleCare for it since I've never had to call them once, not once.
My iMac G5 is one of the most brilliant home computers ever created. One power cord runs the whole system. One. The case is practically seamless and is almost as easy to move around my home as my old powerbook was. When I first shipped it to work some antiMac socialist went crazy and asked why I didn't buy some gateway that was "the same case and form factor and is no different" - http://content.gateway.com/www.gateway.com/img/pro d/249x176/prf55c_pd.jpg - ya freaking right.
I will unplug my internet connection and live in a cave before I buy a "Mac" installed on some beige box AlienDellWare piece of shitbox.
Sorry for the rant, I was up for a little karmaburn anyway.
And when you see articles like this ... no, looks like Apple will get to it before you will get a chance to.
OK. If Dvorak can pull off getting Jolie and Portman naked and wresting in jello, I'll run Windows. But I'll expect them petrified afterward, with hot grits poured over them to boot.
SOME of OS X is open source. The things that make OSX OSX (things like Aqua, core[audio,image,data], Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, DisplayPDF) are not.
It's insane rambling and on top of that it doesn't make the slightest bit of business sense for Apple (yeah sometimes insane and business sense do go together). Apple makes money on hardware. If people can get the Apple experience on cheaper hardware like they did in the clone days, then Apple has a serious problem.
For Apple, running Windows on Apple is perfectly okay because it means people are still buying Apple hardware. However, it is not in their interest to be, primarily, a windows computer manufacturer because then they suddenly have to compete with Dell, etc. They derrive value from having a unique experience with the slick hardware and the nicely integrated OS.
It is furthermore not in the immediate interest of Apple to offer OSX on non-apple hardware. The risk they face there is, once again, people defecting to cheaper hardware. This could change in time though. The position they are in now is that people can get an Apple laptop and become familiar with the Apple experience without abandoning Windows completely. It makes it possible for business users to have chic Apple hardware but still run their company's Windows based software.
So open sourcing will not happen. It's too important to Apple to keep a tight control over the experience of using Apple products. Once they set the code free they can't control what happens. Imagine the mistake of clone licensing repeated with no ability to undo the mistake and you see where this goes.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Then I get to re-experience the same reason why I just recently left Linux for OS X.
Stuck inside their bubble, open source zealots think it's ok to have thousands of branches of THE SAME OS, COMPETING, INCOMPATIBLE WINDOWING LIBRARIES that aren't even standardized as part of the OS, and ten thousand window managers to make absolutely certain that your OS has no recognizable "look" or "personality" whatsoever. When they add new features, they add them in the "cleanest possible" manner (ie, make everyone patch and recompile EVERYTHING), rather than the "most usable" manner (add compatibility layers). When they change features, they don't do so gracefully, they break old code and expect everyone to recompile.
Here's just one example of how open source just gets it wrong: a few years ago, I was looking to play some emulators on my Linux box. I figured it would be as easy as emulation on Windows, but boy was I wrong.
See, I wanted to use the same USB gamepad I'd been using for the last few years on Windows. Only problem was, when Linux added support for *USB* gamepads, they used a different interface. Thus, emulators designed for *ANALOG* gamepads could not use my USB gamepad. Unfortunately, most of these emulators had been abandoned, and nobody had bothered to add USB gamepad support, so I was up shit creek unless I wanted to hack it in myself (sound familiar?). This is an example of adding a new feature CLEANLY, but in a manner that is completely UNUSABLE without extensive reworking.
I'm sick of it. It's little things like this that made using my Linux box for anything besides web browsing and basic office tasks a pain.
WINDOWS, by contrast, has supported USB gamepads since Windows 98, and has taken all the guesswork out of the issue. Regardless of whether you use an analog or USB gamepad, an application can use the same hooks to communicate with the pad regardless, and the user can use the same setup widget to configure ALL pads. Now, that's not going to be very CLEAN code, but it is a damn sight more USABLE. I can't speak for OS X on this issue, simply because I've only been using it a few weeks.
This is just one example of why I don't need yet another open-source operating system. Open source applications are just fine - the ones that are mismanaged or get caught up in their own self-image eventually get replaced by better development projects. But operating systems have momentum, and don't just disappear. Open source zealots could do a lot of damage to the USABLILITY of OS X, and it would still take a long tome for it to fade away.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Why can't we just get a -5 Dvorak option?
- shadowmatter
Two open source software projects aiming at the same market, developing the same product?
I predict that the winner will be the one who goes gold last. All you've got to do is take their version and up the ante! Now, can I run a company or write for a magazine?
Seriously, wouldn't the big winner be the BSD projects?
Get your Unix fortune now!
So Johnny, let me give give you a key insight you'll need to hold onto whenever you write anything about Apple: Jobs doesn't want to win, he wants to be the best.
(PS - I do not and have never owned an Apple computer, so this is not fanboi crap.)
Opensourcing Mac OS X is the number one way to make the operating system resemble Linux. Some people don't see this as bad, but let me explain. I love Linux.
Mac OS X is much more than the Kernel and UNIX command-line and X11. It's a substantial part, that already is opensourced as Darwin. The real value in Mac OS for developers is the incredibly elegant framework built on very high-level components.
Core Data, Core Image, Core Video, Applescript, XCode, QuickTime, Speech, Finder, Aqua, Quartz Extreme, Cocoa Bundles & NIBS... There's a lot to this O/S and it's not something you can just "open" at any time.
There are innumerable software license restrictions in the video CODECS for QuickTime alone. Display PDF? Unless Adobe wants to open source PDF, that just won't happen. This is one of the nicest features of Mac OS. Fonts and vectors actually render as they'll print. Mac users take it for granted. Windows gets this feature in 2007, but no one's asking Microsoft to opensource Windows or ship a stripped down "free" version.
MacOS stands apart, in part, due to its bullish resistance to what everyone else is doing. Opening the code invites pressure to conform, the absolute worst thing that can happen to this OS. Apple has always been an innovator and is often ahead of the rest of the industry.
I fear that an open source community would pressure Apple to abandon the very things that make the OS unique and cutting edge. Their proprietary solutions make for great software.
I can tell you:
As an Objective C (Cocoa) developer, the memory management woes of C++ are long gone. Network communications are so simple, I feel dumb for ever using sockets. Message delegation is a feature so powerfully simple, it allows me to write a fraction of code for the same functionality.
To use Mac OS effectively, you really do need to "think different." The Frameworks make extensive use of generics and design patterns... something Microsoft has only started to embrace in their new toolsets.
When I look at Linux, it's not even close. It's not an end-user OS and never will be without the very things that makes Mac OS what it is. Linux lacks a decent GUI and productivity tools... even the support of commercial development as a whole.
I don't dislike Linux at all. I use Linux and/or BSD for almost everything... embedded hardware, servers, and even light day-to-day tasks. It's just very raw and continues to be a tad hardcore.
Linux is largely C-based. The talent, Dvorak suggests should be tapped, is composed of mostly C developers. The OS is built completely different than one that uses C++ or Objective C as its primary language.
What makes Dvoraks' comments silly, is that there simply isn't a community of good object oriented developers in open source that aren't already actively working on very important projects. I would much rather that some of them finish Eclipse, instead of helping Apple. I think Apple has a handle on it already.
Dvorak is a militant Windows user. He pokes and prods the Apple community. His predictions are meant only to antagonize Apple users.
"In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels."
:)
Wait, so you're referring to just this one column, or the entire Dvorak corpus?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I own two Macs. My PowerBook has spent over three months in repair over the last two and a half years. The last repair, they replaced the CPU with a slower one and still didn't fix the problem that only one of the SO-DIMM slots works.. The hard drive on the Mini died just under a year after I got it. It was taken into the Apple Store, where it turned out that they had miss-filed the serial number and so they would not repair it under warranty.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Hmmm it seems Pournelle is still around. I haven't seen a web site like that since 1999!
Even though Byte is dead, their web site continues with Pournelle's column - he even wrote one recently about Boot Camp. Warning, visionary pearls of wisdom inside!
"Pretty comical, that. The guy who overthrew Batista is the last tottering relic of an ideology that now lies on the dung heap of history. The legacy of Steve Jobs is going to last a hell of a lot longer than the legacy of Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, in every metric except dead bodies and human suffering."
Now for a reading from the book of of Jobadiah:
Hail Steve Jobs/Full of Darwin/The iPod be with you/Blessed art thou among CEOs/and blessed is the cocoa/of thy womb, Steve Jobs/Holy Jobs/Father of Computing/Pray for us Mac users/now and at the time of our conversion to Windows
This is the word of our Lord
Amen