"If Apple can make Unix look and work well, then why can't Linux?"
because there's no such organization called "Linux." Everyone is out there doing their own thing. Nobody knows what linux or its apps are supposed to look like. With a mac, you can tell what it is and how a mac app is supposed to work
there was a time when IE had the best w3c standards. Look what they did with them. The web needs both open standards and open source to protect those standards.
Unfortunately for Opera, its compliance doesn't mean anything either since only 1% want to use it. When Opera decides to make its browser more appealing to more than 5%, its compliance will make a difference to the web. I tried it and I can understand why it's stuck at 1-2%. Hopefully, Opera will get it soon so that it can compete...Safari and Flock are much more interesting competitors right now.
the same could have been said about Palm. It had the name, easy to use OS, the accesssories...none of that helped it against ipaq. The difference however is that music players have nothing to do with corporate adoption or games which is where Microsoft has a big advantage
No, you never bought the right to own Windows. Otherwise you would have access to the source code and put it on as many computers as you want. It's almost like renting an apartment and being evicted if you don't pay the rent on time
I think it would be too embarrassing to see "Cupertino: start your copiers." Too bad ego is more important than what is best for users, even if you can't claim you came up with the idea first.
then it wouldn't be level of control on the whole mac experience that makes a mac a mac.
How about this idea: open the linux kernel so that everyone could checkin as they please. I'd rather let Linus make the decisions.
But once someone is trying to tackle the pc problem, it's not fair to attack their solution when to you there was no problem to begin with! It is a problem to most of us! Once you accept the problem, the question now is, who does a better job? Right now it looks like Microsoft in a lot of ways but there are many many other ways that they are failing. Its going to be up to others to take on Microsoft on all those issues. In a way it's like a scientific theory. You can't expect to throw out a well established theory by finding a few anomalies and taking potshots. You have to show your solution explains both the anomalies *and* all the evidence of the accepted theory.
because they have learned from Microsoft's mistakes and successes. And of course open source has a lot to do with it. Those that complained about Microsoft the loudest were closed source software developers that didn't want to adapt. On the other hand, gnu/linux still is very fragmented and can't be held as the best example of software design.
compared to what? it was only recently that openoffice even comes close to MS Office.
of course we can do better now. But we are looking at microsoft as a reference point very closely so we only see everything wrong with it and ignore the problems of everything else out there.
but most people want choices. They don't want to pay several thousand dollars on a mac just so they can add another hard drive or SLI card. I could live without Windows but I certainly don't want to throw out the idea of a commodity PC.
I'm glad there is an Apple though. It provides a standard of quality that PC's will simply have to match, especially now that mac is on intel and can provide apples to apples (no pun intended) comparisons.
I would argue that it was AMD that forced intel to be much better. It was the new intel that forced apple to switch. ironically, all 3 game consoles now use IBM cpu's.
I would be the first to agree though one can look from their POV. They wanted to be the standard so that nobody would have to worry about compatibility. Just code to IE and it will work on 95% of pc's.
We want change and they favor stability. Some developers don't care about every detail of CSS2. They just want their sites that they invested a lot of money on to work. And they were designed when Netscape was vanishing and mozilla didn't look like it was going anywhere.
how do you maintain a monopoly? Only if it isn't challenged. come on, make something better so people will switch. Unfortunately, Microsoft's competitors were so cocky with their own dominance that they failed to adapt and improve (Palm and Netscape come to mind) and were easy pickings for Microsoft. What about Adobe? I switched to Foxit reader because I couldn't stand Acrobat anymore. That tells me Adobe could be in *big* trouble even though they are resting on PDF dominance right now.
one could argue Microsoft products are shoddy because they support a mind blowing number of hardware configurations. Apple's job is much easier...but do you want to be restricted in what kind of computer you want? If it was up to Apple, they would be still on slow powerpc chips but it was the competition in the PC world that finally made them see the light. And you have to thank Microsoft for at least part of that.
if it wasn't for Microsoft, we would probably still be using IBM PC's. We wouldn't have the tremendous diversity where everyone could build their own pc and it will just 'work'. Microsoft is a tough target to beat as there are still good reasons to favor some of their products.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah it's funny that *nobody* cares about atari heh
lightwave 3d was also created on amiga. They are still around. To me, that is what amiga was really about. Not this.
"If Apple can make Unix look and work well, then why can't Linux?" because there's no such organization called "Linux." Everyone is out there doing their own thing. Nobody knows what linux or its apps are supposed to look like. With a mac, you can tell what it is and how a mac app is supposed to work
remember that Steve Jobs is an alien and that will explain a lot of what we know about macs
because of its open nature, any infighting is bound to spread the flame and burn even stronger.
yeah a lot of nerds want this just so they could have something cheap and cool to put linux on...only to find out that it already uses linux!
there was a time when IE had the best w3c standards. Look what they did with them. The web needs both open standards and open source to protect those standards.
Unfortunately for Opera, its compliance doesn't mean anything either since only 1% want to use it. When Opera decides to make its browser more appealing to more than 5%, its compliance will make a difference to the web. I tried it and I can understand why it's stuck at 1-2%. Hopefully, Opera will get it soon so that it can compete...Safari and Flock are much more interesting competitors right now.
I have a feeling all of those high end features will make zfs really slow for ordinary desktop users
the same could have been said about Palm. It had the name, easy to use OS, the accesssories...none of that helped it against ipaq. The difference however is that music players have nothing to do with corporate adoption or games which is where Microsoft has a big advantage
No, you never bought the right to own Windows. Otherwise you would have access to the source code and put it on as many computers as you want. It's almost like renting an apartment and being evicted if you don't pay the rent on time
I think it would be too embarrassing to see "Cupertino: start your copiers." Too bad ego is more important than what is best for users, even if you can't claim you came up with the idea first.
then it wouldn't be level of control on the whole mac experience that makes a mac a mac. How about this idea: open the linux kernel so that everyone could checkin as they please. I'd rather let Linus make the decisions.
in order for linux to have games, it has to be better than windows for games. What features in an OS that would make it better than windows for games?
what about KDE and Gnome? I am sure they didn't come up with their UI in response to mac.
But once someone is trying to tackle the pc problem, it's not fair to attack their solution when to you there was no problem to begin with! It is a problem to most of us! Once you accept the problem, the question now is, who does a better job? Right now it looks like Microsoft in a lot of ways but there are many many other ways that they are failing. Its going to be up to others to take on Microsoft on all those issues. In a way it's like a scientific theory. You can't expect to throw out a well established theory by finding a few anomalies and taking potshots. You have to show your solution explains both the anomalies *and* all the evidence of the accepted theory.
because they have learned from Microsoft's mistakes and successes. And of course open source has a lot to do with it. Those that complained about Microsoft the loudest were closed source software developers that didn't want to adapt. On the other hand, gnu/linux still is very fragmented and can't be held as the best example of software design.
compared to what? it was only recently that openoffice even comes close to MS Office. of course we can do better now. But we are looking at microsoft as a reference point very closely so we only see everything wrong with it and ignore the problems of everything else out there.
but most people want choices. They don't want to pay several thousand dollars on a mac just so they can add another hard drive or SLI card. I could live without Windows but I certainly don't want to throw out the idea of a commodity PC. I'm glad there is an Apple though. It provides a standard of quality that PC's will simply have to match, especially now that mac is on intel and can provide apples to apples (no pun intended) comparisons.
I would argue that it was AMD that forced intel to be much better. It was the new intel that forced apple to switch. ironically, all 3 game consoles now use IBM cpu's.
I would be the first to agree though one can look from their POV. They wanted to be the standard so that nobody would have to worry about compatibility. Just code to IE and it will work on 95% of pc's. We want change and they favor stability. Some developers don't care about every detail of CSS2. They just want their sites that they invested a lot of money on to work. And they were designed when Netscape was vanishing and mozilla didn't look like it was going anywhere.
how do you maintain a monopoly? Only if it isn't challenged. come on, make something better so people will switch. Unfortunately, Microsoft's competitors were so cocky with their own dominance that they failed to adapt and improve (Palm and Netscape come to mind) and were easy pickings for Microsoft. What about Adobe? I switched to Foxit reader because I couldn't stand Acrobat anymore. That tells me Adobe could be in *big* trouble even though they are resting on PDF dominance right now.
one could argue Microsoft products are shoddy because they support a mind blowing number of hardware configurations. Apple's job is much easier...but do you want to be restricted in what kind of computer you want? If it was up to Apple, they would be still on slow powerpc chips but it was the competition in the PC world that finally made them see the light. And you have to thank Microsoft for at least part of that.
if it wasn't for Microsoft, we would probably still be using IBM PC's. We wouldn't have the tremendous diversity where everyone could build their own pc and it will just 'work'. Microsoft is a tough target to beat as there are still good reasons to favor some of their products.
not if nvidia decides they will no longer bother with linux