Right now, the dual processor system is a fundamental difference between their low-end (iMac, Mac Mini) and high-end (PowerMac) desktop systems. Because the high-end systems are much more expensive, the need is going to continue for this kind of differentiation.
Mac users at the high end are mostly users of their film, video and special effects applications. All of these programs would enormously benefit from faster processors. Motion, in particular, is processor-bound on my dual 2ghz G5 once I gave it enough memory and video card to work with.
Aside from its unfortunate lack of higher processor speeds, Apple's been very good to the customers of its high-end systems. I have no doubt at all that you'll see dual dual core in these systems even when the leap is taken to Pentium.
In fact, the roadmap indicating that the high end will be the last machines transitioned to the Intel chips indicates that the present IBM PowerPC roadmap has at least a revision or two in it to keep us happy. I expect to see two dual-core G5s in a system introduced sometime between now and early 2006, and I expect those who have the need for speed, now, to snap them up.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find a straight across comparison of the two regimes, especially since the Castro reign began with such hope. He promised Democracy and no desire for personal power, and of course he was being economical with the truth in both respects.
I'm having a hard time finding links, and I have limited time, so let me turn to some gross indicators that are easily verifiable.
Under Batista, there was still an independent press that offered a variety of opinions. It was often censored and restricted in what it could say, but at least it was there.
Under Castro, the independent press was bankrupted and replaced with only state-owned media, which I don't think anyone here would consider an improvement.
Under Batista, Cubans did not systematically try to leave their country, taking terrible risks to do so. In fact, under Batista, travel outside of Cuba was entirely legal to all residents.
Under Castro, Cubans have been trying to exit their country, taking terrible risks, for decades. Only a week or two ago, we had a story in the news of that nice ingenious Cuban fellow riding in a boat made of an old car. Pity the Coast Guard caught him. I think he should be an honorary American by now.
Again, I'm not saying Batista was great. He was bad. But Castro took the country from bad to worse.
One proposal that I've heard, that i would support, is to extend copyrights only if the works were still available from the copyright holder in some form.
If something has no economic value to its owner, there's no real point to copyright, no?
No, with all due respect, I just said that if you think Americans live under a tyranny, you should get a better understanding of what life under tyranny is like.
I didn't say you had to live under one, I just said you have to get some idea of what it's like.
The human rights reports do that, to a degree. The cold print probably understates how bad it feels to really live under a dictatorship. But they certainly establish with commendable clarity that Bush is very far from Hitler or Saddam.
I formed my opinion by reading State Department human rights reports.
There are countries, such as North Korea, where you can be pulled out of your house and shot, or sent to internment camps, for simply listening to a prohibited radio station.
It seems somehow pathetic for us to consider Disney's defense of their intellectual property in some way comparable to that. This kind of "moral equivalence" argument, where we say Disney not allowing us to use Mickey Mouse is equivalent to Saddam's Iraq shooting people for looking cross-eyed at Uday is just plain over the top.
I think a lot of people feel that this kind of thing is some kind of giant joke, and I hope those people will visit North Korea, Cuba or some other tyrant-run state.
I really don't think it's "blind patriotism" to defend America's system against Saddam Hussein's or Kim Jong Il's. To my ears, this kind of statement is just plain absurd.
Well, yes, so I should probably note that the original poster's point was invalid.
He said that tiresome litigation would ensue if you used the characters Snow White or Beauty and The Beast in a work.
If you used a likeness too similar to the Disney characters, no doubt you would, but I found a web site that tells the Beauty and the Beast story, in various versions. The site has obviously not been shut down by Disney, so the original poster's point is invalid.
Perhaps I should have checked that before replying, but I wanted to make a wider point, which was a plea for originality, rather than nit-picking his specific claim.
I've been to Cuba, once. As I say, fascinating place. And certainly, police on every street corner.
When I made remarks to my Cuban girlfriend in a state-owned restaurant that could be construed as being against the regime, she certainly seemed sincerely frightened, and told me the waiters were spies.
i suspect the Cuban government knows that if they make the revolution look too perfect, they'll lose credibility. The remarks you mention may well have been part of the script. It's pretty clear from what I've heard from celebrities who've been invited to Cuba that the Cuban government folks are experts in being credible, at least to those who come wanting to be fooled.
But if you stay at a Casa Particular and watch the unmaintained buildings slowly crumble around you, it's harder to conceal the truth.
I'm not going to say that life under Batista was perfect; of course not. But it was better than now.
Don't be so unoriginal; make up your own characters.
Really, I think a lot of people who are against copyrights are simply too lazy to make up their own original stuff. Yes, I know, it's harder, but it's not theft of other people's ideas, either.
For example, many people complain about the extension of copyrights in citing Disney's efforts to retain the copyright to Mickey Mouse. Well, why shouldn't the Disney Corporation retain those rights? They developed and nurtured the character over decades. Why should people who had no stake in the character, who did not create it or make it grow, have the right to use it in, say, advertisements for some widget company?
And it's a lot different from China. This is an issue of political free speech, of dissent from their regime. If you were in China, you would not be allowed to say the regional equivalent of "Bush is Hitler!" We can say "Bush is Hitler" because this is a free country, and, quite frankly, because Bush isn't actually Hitler.
You might want to try visiting a totalitarian country someday. Try Cuba; a gorgeous tropical island, wonderful friendly people... and secret agents in the restaurants listening to your every move.
America, for all its faults, is nothing at all like a totalitarian country. Those who say it is truly have no clue of what life under tyranny is really like.
How many times do I hear criticism of Apple as a boutique brand that charges too much for their stuff? In part, they charge too much because they provide better help and support, at least in their retail stores. That costs the big bucks.
When you buy at Fry's, you're buying in part because they have good prices. They're cheaper than the Apple stores because they offer worse service.
I'd say most people make this kind of knowing tradeoff, or we'd still have old-style computer stores that had good service and people who know what they're talking about.
Instead, we have Frys, because most of us are, bluntly, cheap people who care much more about price than service.
When I last visited an Apple retail store. There's genuine substance behind the gloss.
I've actually met a few knowledgeable salespeople at Fry's, although they vary wildly. I understand pay is horrible.
When at Fry's, it's a good bet that your fellow customers will be knowledgeable. Feel free to ask stray customers questions if your salesperson doesn't know. And that's why the Fry's formula works, even for Linux - people who want Linux buy it.
I wanted a cheap Linux box in the middle of last year, and I wanted it right away. Walmart didn't have it but Fry's did, and dirt cheap. (I'm not near a Microcenter, although I think there's one down in Orange County).
I think they at least try to restrict their educational edition to educational buyers, which is not the case with Office Student & Teacher.
I absolutely agree that Pages is worth the money; I was talking about public perception.
I played around with your numbering problem for a little while, and it looks like there is a way to do it. It's not perfect and should probably be done after the document is safely created.
1 Create a two-column layout 2 Make the first column very thin 3 Type the numbers down the first column. I recommend Bookman Old Style to duplicate the effect of the old pleading paper. 4 Use the second column for text.
It's a little clumsy because any change in the document's text will throw off the column layout. Further research might show how you can enable column two to flow into column two instead of column one of the next page.
In the end, I actually think making and printing the template and then using Pages to create the document proper might still be the best way to go. Remember, that's how this was done from the early days, when there was special pleading paper. (An ex girlfriend of mine was a legal secretary).
I dunno, if they use the same guts and the same Taiwanese/Chinese contract manufacturers, really they are creating the same product with identical econoomies of scale, and it should be possible to sell it at the same price, too.
That's not going to happen, of course. Apple's going to buy the "designer" aluminum while Dull continues to buy the cheapest possible components. But if for some reason Apple and Dell wanted to make identical products, I don't think there would be much of a price gap.
D
Re:I can't see this happening anytime soon
on
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I really like Pages. I have the trial version that came with Tiger and I've been using it for fairly sophisticated documents (16 pages with lots of sections and pictures) and the results are beautiful. I particularly like the ease with which I can put together a style sheet that I like. This can be done with Word but the process is a lot more complex and error prone.
I will be buying iWork before my trial expires, because I really enjoy the program. I think it's too bad more people aren't buying; if you're a Mac user at all curious about it, it's well worth picking up.
At the same time, the lack of a spreadsheet, even a dead-simple one, is a definite problem. If you look at $80 for iWork versus $150 for Office Student & Teacher edition(*), Excel alone is worth the price difference. So it's hard to justify price-wise, but it really is cool and fun to use, and for me that's enough.
At least to me, a GUI that pulls everything together like OpenOffice has is not at all important. I know how to use the Finder and open and save dialogue boxes; no need for a new version of same.
D
(*) As far as I can tell, realistically the Student & Teacher Edition is for anyone outside of a corporation too cheap to blow $400 on the full version.
I thought it was a pretty interesting article, even though it was clearly written from the perspective of someone who was using unethical methods of search engine optimization and now sees his business model undermined.
However, I'm sure his business has gotten a big leap in credibility through the link in Slashdot. (Links in comments don't get anyone anywhere, but I believe the links from the main page do).
That being said, my reaction to the linked article is that if someone's saying there's no danger to Linux, it's quite possible that there is. If MacOS X were to work on commodity hardware, its $129-odd price wouldn't be that much more than the current deluxe packaged versions of Red Hat or Suse Linux. Remember, for most people Linux actually isn't free; it's bought in a package from a store.
However, Steve doesn't really want that to happen, at least not yet. And as long as it doesn't happen, yes, there's no real danger since his hardware is always going to be significantly more expensive than what mainstream people want to pay.
But trust me, if the issue is raised, the odds are that there is danger. Or, more properly put, competition. And I think that's a good thing. Both Windows AND Linux could use it.
In the end, platforms that have been popular past a certain point have a very tough time dying. Far as I'm concerned, Linux, MacOS and Windows are all going to survive for many happy (or not so happy, in the case of Windows) years to come.
I don't know how feasible it is to protect users from themselves.
After all, I could take my PowerMac G5 and hook up one of the dying 15" CRT monitors I have upstairs to it, and I would not have broken any law. I would have ruined my user experience, yes, but Apple cannot prohibit this.
That being said, since Apple has beautiful fonts included in their OS releases, as far as I can tell they will continue to have beautiful fonts, whether they run on a gleaming new Mac or a beater Dell. So that's not the best example to use.
The real concern, I believe, is about driver support, which is very difficult to put together. However, it may be easier today than it was before, since so much stuff is built into motherboards nowadays, and so much of it is under Intel's control.
I'm not at all sure if now there is little reason to prohibit MacOS X from being installed in hardware. Since Apple no longer has to design or maintain a hardware platform, it might be quite feasible to transition into a software company and sell copies of MacOS X to the public. After all, that's Microsoft's core business, and last time I looked they weren't doing too badly.
Mac clones stole the high end of Apple's market by taking advantage of more powerful chips more rapidly. I don't think Apple's going to let that happen this time, and as long as Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive do their jobs, there will always be a premium market for Apple hardware.
But right now, Apple's dipping a toe in the water, and I'm sure their own market research will determine what they actually do. If I were them, I'd probably make it so it was slightly awkward, but not impossible, to install MacOS X on a generic PC. Apple's core market wouldn't bother, but they'd gain customers on the other end. Perhaps they could add product activation that would trigger only if the hardware wasn't Apple. That seems like it could be the fairest way to capture revenues while not antagonizing Apple customers.
That doesn't seem to be true, at least not over a statistically significant period. Last year Apple was at an average of about 2.5%; now it's at an average of 2.9%. That's a substantial increase, which appears to mirror the market share numbers we've been hearing.
Linux averaged at about 2.9% last year and has increased to 3.3% this year, so actually Mac and Linux have grown by exactly the same amount, meaning that Mac has grown by a somewhat higher percentage due to its smaller initial base.
I like to use open source software when it creates the best products. I like to use closed source when it creates the best products. And Apple gives me a great opportunity to do both.
He mentions that his hip hop shows would still be profitable if he had to spend $2,500 every week to replace messed up bathroom tile. This wss in his recent entry complaining about vandalism in the club.
So I think it's a safe guess that he's making enough for the club to be sustainable, but doesn't want to brag about it on his blog.
Because he saw what he perceived as a problem, the decline of San Francisco nightlife(*), and he did something about it.
True, he's sufficiently wealthy that he had the power to do it, but there are a lot of people out there who gained sudden wealth, did nothing noteworthy with it, and slid into history unnoticed.
I'm pleased to hear, albiet indirectly through his site, that the DNA Lounge is apparently healthily profitable and his second life is a success.
His story should be an inspiration to the restless everywhere, and that's no joke.
D
(*) I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I'll take his word for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, the dual processor system is a fundamental difference between their low-end (iMac, Mac Mini) and high-end (PowerMac) desktop systems. Because the high-end systems are much more expensive, the need is going to continue for this kind of differentiation.
Mac users at the high end are mostly users of their film, video and special effects applications. All of these programs would enormously benefit from faster processors. Motion, in particular, is processor-bound on my dual 2ghz G5 once I gave it enough memory and video card to work with.
Aside from its unfortunate lack of higher processor speeds, Apple's been very good to the customers of its high-end systems. I have no doubt at all that you'll see dual dual core in these systems even when the leap is taken to Pentium.
In fact, the roadmap indicating that the high end will be the last machines transitioned to the Intel chips indicates that the present IBM PowerPC roadmap has at least a revision or two in it to keep us happy. I expect to see two dual-core G5s in a system introduced sometime between now and early 2006, and I expect those who have the need for speed, now, to snap them up.
D
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find a straight across comparison of the two regimes, especially since the Castro reign began with such hope. He promised Democracy and no desire for personal power, and of course he was being economical with the truth in both respects.
I'm having a hard time finding links, and I have limited time, so let me turn to some gross indicators that are easily verifiable.
Under Batista, there was still an independent press that offered a variety of opinions. It was often censored and restricted in what it could say, but at least it was there.
Under Castro, the independent press was bankrupted and replaced with only state-owned media, which I don't think anyone here would consider an improvement.
Under Batista, Cubans did not systematically try to leave their country, taking terrible risks to do so. In fact, under Batista, travel outside of Cuba was entirely legal to all residents.
Under Castro, Cubans have been trying to exit their country, taking terrible risks, for decades. Only a week or two ago, we had a story in the news of that nice ingenious Cuban fellow riding in a boat made of an old car. Pity the Coast Guard caught him. I think he should be an honorary American by now.
Again, I'm not saying Batista was great. He was bad. But Castro took the country from bad to worse.
D
One proposal that I've heard, that i would support, is to extend copyrights only if the works were still available from the copyright holder in some form.
If something has no economic value to its owner, there's no real point to copyright, no?
D
No, with all due respect, I just said that if you think Americans live under a tyranny, you should get a better understanding of what life under tyranny is like.
I didn't say you had to live under one, I just said you have to get some idea of what it's like.
The human rights reports do that, to a degree. The cold print probably understates how bad it feels to really live under a dictatorship. But they certainly establish with commendable clarity that Bush is very far from Hitler or Saddam.
D
I formed my opinion by reading State Department human rights reports.
There are countries, such as North Korea, where you can be pulled out of your house and shot, or sent to internment camps, for simply listening to a prohibited radio station.
It seems somehow pathetic for us to consider Disney's defense of their intellectual property in some way comparable to that. This kind of "moral equivalence" argument, where we say Disney not allowing us to use Mickey Mouse is equivalent to Saddam's Iraq shooting people for looking cross-eyed at Uday is just plain over the top.
I think a lot of people feel that this kind of thing is some kind of giant joke, and I hope those people will visit North Korea, Cuba or some other tyrant-run state.
I really don't think it's "blind patriotism" to defend America's system against Saddam Hussein's or Kim Jong Il's. To my ears, this kind of statement is just plain absurd.
Hope that helps.
D
I laughed, and so I would have moderated you as +1 Funny.
Alas, I wrote the parent, so I can't.
But thank you kindly for the chuckle.
D
Well, yes, so I should probably note that the original poster's point was invalid.
He said that tiresome litigation would ensue if you used the characters Snow White or Beauty and The Beast in a work.
If you used a likeness too similar to the Disney characters, no doubt you would, but I found a web site that tells the Beauty and the Beast story, in various versions. The site has obviously not been shut down by Disney, so the original poster's point is invalid.
Perhaps I should have checked that before replying, but I wanted to make a wider point, which was a plea for originality, rather than nit-picking his specific claim.
D
I've been to Cuba, once. As I say, fascinating place. And certainly, police on every street corner.
When I made remarks to my Cuban girlfriend in a state-owned restaurant that could be construed as being against the regime, she certainly seemed sincerely frightened, and told me the waiters were spies.
i suspect the Cuban government knows that if they make the revolution look too perfect, they'll lose credibility. The remarks you mention may well have been part of the script. It's pretty clear from what I've heard from celebrities who've been invited to Cuba that the Cuban government folks are experts in being credible, at least to those who come wanting to be fooled.
But if you stay at a Casa Particular and watch the unmaintained buildings slowly crumble around you, it's harder to conceal the truth.
I'm not going to say that life under Batista was perfect; of course not. But it was better than now.
D
Don't be so unoriginal; make up your own characters.
... and secret agents in the restaurants listening to your every move.
Really, I think a lot of people who are against copyrights are simply too lazy to make up their own original stuff. Yes, I know, it's harder, but it's not theft of other people's ideas, either.
For example, many people complain about the extension of copyrights in citing Disney's efforts to retain the copyright to Mickey Mouse. Well, why shouldn't the Disney Corporation retain those rights? They developed and nurtured the character over decades. Why should people who had no stake in the character, who did not create it or make it grow, have the right to use it in, say, advertisements for some widget company?
And it's a lot different from China. This is an issue of political free speech, of dissent from their regime. If you were in China, you would not be allowed to say the regional equivalent of "Bush is Hitler!" We can say "Bush is Hitler" because this is a free country, and, quite frankly, because Bush isn't actually Hitler.
You might want to try visiting a totalitarian country someday. Try Cuba; a gorgeous tropical island, wonderful friendly people
America, for all its faults, is nothing at all like a totalitarian country. Those who say it is truly have no clue of what life under tyranny is really like.
D
Unfortunately, there are tradeoffs.
How many times do I hear criticism of Apple as a boutique brand that charges too much for their stuff? In part, they charge too much because they provide better help and support, at least in their retail stores. That costs the big bucks.
When you buy at Fry's, you're buying in part because they have good prices. They're cheaper than the Apple stores because they offer worse service.
I'd say most people make this kind of knowing tradeoff, or we'd still have old-style computer stores that had good service and people who know what they're talking about.
Instead, we have Frys, because most of us are, bluntly, cheap people who care much more about price than service.
D
Any photographer worth his salt would have long since brought control back into his hands by obtaining a good quality photo printer.
What are they, $200 nowadays?
Sheesh.
D
When I last visited an Apple retail store. There's genuine substance behind the gloss.
I've actually met a few knowledgeable salespeople at Fry's, although they vary wildly. I understand pay is horrible.
When at Fry's, it's a good bet that your fellow customers will be knowledgeable. Feel free to ask stray customers questions if your salesperson doesn't know. And that's why the Fry's formula works, even for Linux - people who want Linux buy it.
I wanted a cheap Linux box in the middle of last year, and I wanted it right away. Walmart didn't have it but Fry's did, and dirt cheap. (I'm not near a Microcenter, although I think there's one down in Orange County).
D
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linspire use Debian as a base?
D
I think they at least try to restrict their educational edition to educational buyers, which is not the case with Office Student & Teacher.
I absolutely agree that Pages is worth the money; I was talking about public perception.
I played around with your numbering problem for a little while, and it looks like there is a way to do it. It's not perfect and should probably be done after the document is safely created.
1 Create a two-column layout
2 Make the first column very thin
3 Type the numbers down the first column. I recommend Bookman Old Style to duplicate the effect of the old pleading paper.
4 Use the second column for text.
It's a little clumsy because any change in the document's text will throw off the column layout. Further research might show how you can enable column two to flow into column two instead of column one of the next page.
In the end, I actually think making and printing the template and then using Pages to create the document proper might still be the best way to go. Remember, that's how this was done from the early days, when there was special pleading paper. (An ex girlfriend of mine was a legal secretary).
Hope this helps!
D
I dunno, if they use the same guts and the same Taiwanese/Chinese contract manufacturers, really they are creating the same product with identical econoomies of scale, and it should be possible to sell it at the same price, too.
That's not going to happen, of course. Apple's going to buy the "designer" aluminum while Dull continues to buy the cheapest possible components. But if for some reason Apple and Dell wanted to make identical products, I don't think there would be much of a price gap.
D
I really like Pages. I have the trial version that came with Tiger and I've been using it for fairly sophisticated documents (16 pages with lots of sections and pictures) and the results are beautiful. I particularly like the ease with which I can put together a style sheet that I like. This can be done with Word but the process is a lot more complex and error prone.
I will be buying iWork before my trial expires, because I really enjoy the program. I think it's too bad more people aren't buying; if you're a Mac user at all curious about it, it's well worth picking up.
At the same time, the lack of a spreadsheet, even a dead-simple one, is a definite problem. If you look at $80 for iWork versus $150 for Office Student & Teacher edition(*), Excel alone is worth the price difference. So it's hard to justify price-wise, but it really is cool and fun to use, and for me that's enough.
At least to me, a GUI that pulls everything together like OpenOffice has is not at all important. I know how to use the Finder and open and save dialogue boxes; no need for a new version of same.
D
(*) As far as I can tell, realistically the Student & Teacher Edition is for anyone outside of a corporation too cheap to blow $400 on the full version.
I thought it was a pretty interesting article, even though it was clearly written from the perspective of someone who was using unethical methods of search engine optimization and now sees his business model undermined.
However, I'm sure his business has gotten a big leap in credibility through the link in Slashdot. (Links in comments don't get anyone anywhere, but I believe the links from the main page do).
D
I think cable modem companies frown on that sort of thing, and in fact block the relevent ports.
D
Didn't NextStep have some kind of Windows software foundation that allowed NextStep programs to run under Windows?
A few moments of search proves that other people are thinking along similar lines.
That being said, my reaction to the linked article is that if someone's saying there's no danger to Linux, it's quite possible that there is. If MacOS X were to work on commodity hardware, its $129-odd price wouldn't be that much more than the current deluxe packaged versions of Red Hat or Suse Linux. Remember, for most people Linux actually isn't free; it's bought in a package from a store.
However, Steve doesn't really want that to happen, at least not yet. And as long as it doesn't happen, yes, there's no real danger since his hardware is always going to be significantly more expensive than what mainstream people want to pay.
But trust me, if the issue is raised, the odds are that there is danger. Or, more properly put, competition. And I think that's a good thing. Both Windows AND Linux could use it.
In the end, platforms that have been popular past a certain point have a very tough time dying. Far as I'm concerned, Linux, MacOS and Windows are all going to survive for many happy (or not so happy, in the case of Windows) years to come.
D
I don't know how feasible it is to protect users from themselves.
After all, I could take my PowerMac G5 and hook up one of the dying 15" CRT monitors I have upstairs to it, and I would not have broken any law. I would have ruined my user experience, yes, but Apple cannot prohibit this.
That being said, since Apple has beautiful fonts included in their OS releases, as far as I can tell they will continue to have beautiful fonts, whether they run on a gleaming new Mac or a beater Dell. So that's not the best example to use.
The real concern, I believe, is about driver support, which is very difficult to put together. However, it may be easier today than it was before, since so much stuff is built into motherboards nowadays, and so much of it is under Intel's control.
I'm not at all sure if now there is little reason to prohibit MacOS X from being installed in hardware. Since Apple no longer has to design or maintain a hardware platform, it might be quite feasible to transition into a software company and sell copies of MacOS X to the public. After all, that's Microsoft's core business, and last time I looked they weren't doing too badly.
Mac clones stole the high end of Apple's market by taking advantage of more powerful chips more rapidly. I don't think Apple's going to let that happen this time, and as long as Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive do their jobs, there will always be a premium market for Apple hardware.
But right now, Apple's dipping a toe in the water, and I'm sure their own market research will determine what they actually do. If I were them, I'd probably make it so it was slightly awkward, but not impossible, to install MacOS X on a generic PC. Apple's core market wouldn't bother, but they'd gain customers on the other end. Perhaps they could add product activation that would trigger only if the hardware wasn't Apple. That seems like it could be the fairest way to capture revenues while not antagonizing Apple customers.
D
That doesn't seem to be true, at least not over a statistically significant period. Last year Apple was at an average of about 2.5%; now it's at an average of 2.9%. That's a substantial increase, which appears to mirror the market share numbers we've been hearing.
Linux averaged at about 2.9% last year and has increased to 3.3% this year, so actually Mac and Linux have grown by exactly the same amount, meaning that Mac has grown by a somewhat higher percentage due to its smaller initial base.
I like to use open source software when it creates the best products. I like to use closed source when it creates the best products. And Apple gives me a great opportunity to do both.
D
He mentions that his hip hop shows would still be profitable if he had to spend $2,500 every week to replace messed up bathroom tile. This wss in his recent entry complaining about vandalism in the club.
So I think it's a safe guess that he's making enough for the club to be sustainable, but doesn't want to brag about it on his blog.
D
I strongly suspect that most people pay for their Linux distributions nowadays.
And, of course, most people aren't capable of fixing bugs in operating system software.
They just complain their mouse doesn't work, because it doesn't.
D
If you don't care about the experiences and ideas of nobodies, why do you read Slashdot comments?
D
I have a healthy respect for him.
Why?
Because he saw what he perceived as a problem, the decline of San Francisco nightlife(*), and he did something about it.
True, he's sufficiently wealthy that he had the power to do it, but there are a lot of people out there who gained sudden wealth, did nothing noteworthy with it, and slid into history unnoticed.
I'm pleased to hear, albiet indirectly through his site, that the DNA Lounge is apparently healthily profitable and his second life is a success.
His story should be an inspiration to the restless everywhere, and that's no joke.
D
(*) I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but I'll take his word for it.