Re:Thoughts on Be/PPC
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 2
I actually think Be would have been a better OS than NeXT for Apple, and the price was much lower. But with 20/20 hindsight, there is no doubt that Steve Jobs has revitalized the company, and he deserves massive credit for it.
As for JLG, I think he's wised up a bit since his days at Apple. He seems to have genuinely changed his mind about being more open over the years.
I, too, wish both of them nothing but the best. MacOS X is likely to be quite impressive, and I look forward to seeing it and giving it a try on my G3.
I really don't think JLG wanted to drop PPC support. In fact, I'm sure it was a wrenching decision for him. But there were a whole lot of factors that forced his hand:
He wasn't welcome. Why struggle to do something when your efforts are clearly not welcome? I think this is a very valid argument. Apple doesn't want him to do it, and with his usual gallic charm, he obeys with a smile. I must admire his composure - typical Slashdot readers would launch an assassination attempt on Chairman Jobs.
Support Issues. Leaving aside Be's own personal desires, virtually all new software for Be is coming out for Intel, without PowerPC versions. The reality is that the developers have spoken, and Be at this point is really run for the developers. Developers feel that Intel is the future, because it's so cheap and popular. Sadly, they are probably right.
Apple shouldn't be so close-minded. I know I was considering buying a new blue and white G3, and one of the main reasons I decided against it was that I like Be and wanted a system that ran it. So I bought an Intel system instead. I didn't really want to do it - I would have liked to support Apple over Microsoft-based clone systems. At the same time, I know Apple needs to push MacOS X, and they probably don't want Be to cut into that market. JLG doesn't blame Apple for this; he tells us it's a reasonable business decision.
Be needs to make money. Actually, Be gets punched both ways here. We criticise it for not doing future PPC versions, because it needs to make a profit, and yet we turn around and critisize it for not making a profit, too. Which is it, making a profit or producing a PPC version few are likely to buy?
This non-Apple PowerPC stuff is unproven. From the point of view of an average consumer, you can either buy Intel, with tons of software and support from Microsoft, or you can buy PPC, with no support from anyone other than Linux or AIX. Who's going to buy these systems? JLG now markets Be on the basis of coexistance with Windows and MacOS; until these machines can run one of those systems, this "piggyback" strategy won't work. Worse, as I said before, developers are voting for Intel with their feet. So why support the new PPC systems? At best it would fragment the platform and divide developer's interests, just as everything seemed to be coalescing on Intel. I wouldn't want that outcome if I was JLG.
Be is one of the few thouroughly decent companies in the world of software. People who give Be a fair shake tend to love the product. Be's upgrade policies are more than fair; they're generous. JLG is a bit of a character, and that makes following the company and its exploits fun. How many company chairmen respond personally to your email?
Given that Wintel/WinAMD/etc systems are so cheap and run Be so well, I see little point to PPC other than sentiment. Admittedly that's a powerful force, but it's not going to win Be the mainstream friends it needs to survive.
D ----
Re:The Viability of Be and Linux
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 2
Advantages of Be:
- Very Good stability. I've had it crash occasionally, but only when I run it completely out of memory. Don't do that and you're at Linux levels of stability.
- Superior multitasking - I find it a much smoother system than Linux.
- Extraordinarily slick look and feel. I think it says something that one of the most popular Enlightenment window manager configurations is the one imitating the BeOS. Rasterman is a genius, and I bow my head to him as a programmer, but the high overhead of the X-Windows system just can't compare to the integrated nature of Be.
- If you know C++, the API is said to be fantastic.
- Cool applications like e-Picture and GoBe Productive make me think the platform has a good long-term future - despite all the "No Apps!" noises, they are coming, and what's there is great. Apps tend to have an original, well-throught out flair which I find very endearing. They still aren't as full featured as Microsoft Word and Excel, but who uses all those features, anyway?
Disadvantages of Be:
- No released version of Netscape yet. Opera is out and works well, but you have to pay to use it past 30 days.
- Hardware support can be probematical. What's there works great, what's not there frustrates users no end. I'd say at least 90% of Be user complaints on the newsgroup are hardware support-related.
Hope that helps. I'd say it's definitely well worth checking out. Incidentally, it may be proprietary, but actually it's quite a bit cheaper to keep up to date than commercial releases of a Linux version.
What I meant by 'pervasive multi-threading' is the integration of threading in the GUI. Under BeOS, if I have two browser windows open and one is loading a page, I can concurrently type into the other window and/or bring up a new window entirely. I've seen this in other Be programs, so I think it's a feature of the OS.
I don't see that in Netscape for any platform, SGI and Linux included.
True. Apple definitely hasn't done as well as one might like in making their systems accessible to the less moneyed.
At the same time, I'm not convinced that PC upgrades are any more cost-effective if you want to get the same level of performance as you'd get with a new system. You can certainly upgrade individual components, as you did, but if you want the performance of a new PC, nothing beats wandering down to the store and buying a new one.
"Turboflames" that are on topic can contain interesting or insightful remarks.
What I'm talking about is utter dreck, like the fellow who posted 1,000 line copies of the previous discussion, and the people insulting each other's mothers.
The video editing card for my beige G3 is a third-party card. The only thing closed about the hardware is that Apple's the only company that can make it.
Open hardware tends to drive down prices very fast, but it doesn't seem to lead to innovation. I think this is because consumer demand is not for innovation, but lower prices above all.
You know, it's interesting that the most intriguing hardware comes from closed or partially closed systems. We hear more "cools" and "awesome" when we talk about vendors of closed systems like Apple or SGI. When's the last time we featured an article like "HP comes out with new Pavilion line of PCs"?
Granted, we may not be able to afford some of these "cool" systems. But I have yet to see proof that openness can create something "insanely great" like the Mac or BeOS. And - before you ask - I consider Linux "great". But not insanely so, because it's just an excellent copy of something that already existed. MacOS and BeOS both broke new ground in some way - Mac with the GUI and BeOS with the pervasive multi-threading.
I don't know about you, but for the most part I find that upgrades are not cost-effective - you won't spend much more if you buy a whole new machine and sell your old one.
I think Mac users got into the habit of doing upgrades during Apple's darkest days, when they were just not responsive to consumer demand. Based on the reaction of people to the new G4, I don't think we can accuse them of that now.
I'm not inclined to think of Apple's action as a good thing - I think it's a mildly bad one. But I'm not sure it warrants the extreme negative reaction it's received so far.
That's why it's a lot easier to get video editing stuff working on the Mac, and it keeps on working once installed.
Both of those issues are probematical with the PC.
A Mac is still a lot more fun to use than a PC, because it has a far more aesthetically pleasing look and feel. The Windows(tm) interface is both ugly and byzantine (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platform, for instance).
Whenever I need to use mainstream software such as Photoshop, I go gladly to my Mac. I'm glad it's there - and I have Irix, Linux, BeOS and Windows systems.
An AC post has a default score of 0, which is normally considered 'no score'. You'll only see a "Score: 0" if someone has been moderated down from 1 or up from -1.
There is certainly some anti-AC prejudice. Interestingly enough, I've noticed more abuse from ACs since the moderation point system was created.
Which is more valuable to you, the operating system files or your own data?
I don't know about you, but I can always re-install the OS from CD... pity I can't do that for my personal stuff. True, I have a backup, but I'm still going to lose the current day's work.
In short, the original poster had an excellent point. Best way to solve it? A few thoughts:
- Don't allow macros in document files - require that the macros be in program code files linked to documents. When the virus-laden document is emailed, the program code won't go with it. If program code is needed, send both files.
- Don't allow autoexec macros, or have a screen that pops up asking if you want to execute the auto-exec macro. Don't allow the user to switch off this protection.
I think those two changes would go a long way towards killing off macro viruses.
I'd say there would be little benefit in switching to StarOffice for Windows. It only makes sense to switch if you can move most users to Linux/Unix, since that's bound to substantially reduce "This worked yesterday! It doesn't work now!" type questions. It will increase the "How do I do this?" questions, but only for a while. In my experience, the clueless will still need help, and the clueful will figure out the differences pretty fast.
If you consider how expensive IT support is, it might make a lot of sense to do this, assuming StarOffice's functions are comparable.
It's pretty easy to learn a new macro language, and in my one check of StarOffice's, it looked like a virtual clone of MS's - it was so close it felt eerie.
The real disadvantage of Linux is that custom applications based on Access won't run. I wonder if StarDivision, flush with cash, has an Access clone in the works? It would be the next logical step.
Or maybe StarDivision's owners are lounging on a tropical island. I'm still flabbergasted at the price they got from Sun. I would have believed closer to $ 50 million than $ 500 million...
While I don't think Sun is perfect, I doubt that they have the curious combination of utter ruthlessness and rotten-quality products that's made MS so hated. We might fight them anyway out of principle, but I suspect it will be more of a friendly fight. At least that's my hope.
What if I'm using a library like GD that creates GIFs on the fly? As far as I know, GD has no non-free alternative. I'd like to be able to pay Unisys a reasonable royalty to make my use of GD legal.
(Disclaimer: I don't currently use GD, but I recognize its usefulness for many projects).
Any idea how much he paid? I'd be surprised if he would have agreed to more than $ 5 a copy, which makes this situation all the more bizarre.
To the other fellow who said that I don't really own Photoshop - didn't I say that I owned a license? The license is shorthand for exactly the type of agreement you're talking about.
I think a lot of the anger about this comes out of the obvious lack of realism in the license terms. Adobe Photoshop costs somewhere around $695. If I create an image using Photoshop, it's legal. So why, under any conceivable situation, should I be obligated to pay $ 5,000 for a license, when I could buy the same thing (and get a FREE program!) for $ 695?
Now, I own a legal copy of Photoshop. Let's say I want to do some image processing on my Unix machine, so I use the GIMP to create a GIF file. Since I've already paid Unisys for a license to distribute GIFs by purchasing Photoshop, should I have to pay again for the GIMP?
Now, I'm sure most of the revenues from Photoshop go to Adobe, not Unisys. Let's say I don't have a legal copy of Photoshop, and I want to make my copy of the GIMP legal to produce GIFs. Would it not be reasonable for me to write, say, a $10 check to Unisys to pay for LZW? I really doubt they get more than that from Adobe for the license. If I was using the GIMP to produce GIFs, I wouldn't mind writing that check - $ 10 isn't exactly going to send me to the bankruptcy court or anything.
Bluntly, I don't think even a small fraction of those who run non-commercial web sites have $5,000 for a license, no matter what program they used to create GIFs. As a result, I believe the Unisys program to be hopelessly wrong-headed, even if it's directed only at people without licenses of any kind.
Finally, I'll bet most people simply don't know if they own a license or not. Say I create an animated GIF using e-Picture on the BeOS. Beatware is a tiny company that sells a $149 package. Do they have a license? How the heck should I know? I certainly don't know how they run their business! What about Paint Shop Pro, which many people buy for around $ 79? Does that include a license? Search me. I certainly don't think it's fair for Unisys to come out with this kind of nebulous warning without explaining what software they're targeting and why.
I suppose Boutell.com's GD library was a major violator here. Let's say you use GD to dynamically create GIFs. I'd argue that you owe Unisys $10 or so, just as I mentioned above for the GIMP. If there was a reasonable program to collect this money, I think most of us would pay.
Unisys doesn't need to make the software free, but they need to be reasonable and fair about their license conditions. Trying to charge $5,000 to sites that have gross revenues of $ 0 is insane, no matter what use they make of the technology. Charging them $10 would make Unisys a little money, make us lose a little money, and everyone would be more or less happy.
If that's true, why did Sun pay over half a billion dollars for the company?
That seems like a lot for a project that appears to be as revenue-free as they come. Not that they shouldn't have bought it - the price just seems amazingly high.
Actually, it looks like if you have any kind of advertising on your site - even pathetically low-paying things like Amazon link banners and Commonwealth Network ads - you have to negotiate with them.
What we should really do is ask to negotiate a license, write down our revenues as $ 50 a month, and see what they do. After all, it would cost their attorneys more to draft the agreement than they'd get in a million lifetimes!
What amazes me is that a big corporation like Unisys, with plenty of legal firepower and what-not, does this kind of thing without thinking it through. Can they really afford to negotiate all the contracts they plan to negotiate, or file all the lawsuits they plan to file?
I doubt it. Hey, not even the Church of Scientology could.
The best fonts in the Unix world are, unsurprisingly, on SGI machines. You can pick up a used Indigo2 for pretty cheap nowadays, and use it as a front-end for your Linux systems. That's what I did, and I'm happy as a clam.
I just wish people wouldn't keep on using Helvetica on their web pages - that's the only bad SGI font:-(.
The Enlightenment window manager comes with some nice readable fonts - you might want to try that too.
D
My document on buying a used SGI machine: http://www.amazing.com/internet/old-sgi-faq.html
- You install distributed.net expressly to send stuff back. Distributed.net tells you explicitly that it is doing so.
- Distributed.net only sends things back that are related to its mission.
- You install Microsoft Office to do word processing, create spreadsheets or run a database. None of these missions require an ongoing information exchange with Microsoft.
- Microsoft includes this information in their.doc format without informing you, and without giving you a chance to opt out.
- Microsoft is a large company that many people distrust becuase of similar fiascos in the past. As a result, our comfort level with giving them information is likely to be lower than with distributed.
I almost did when I wrote my original post, but I didn't want to get too verbose.
My understanding is that BeOS is genuinely a completely new kernel, designed from the ground up for use with multiple processors. I don't think the Be thread/process system owes much to Unix.
Be's window system is brand new and owes nothing to X-Windows. In terms of speed, this is a major advantage - the system definitely has a much crisper, zippier feeling than any other OS. The disadvantage, of course, is that it starts from ground zero in applications - X applications are not compatible without an X compatibility layer (which does exist; I don't know about its performance).
However, I believe Be is posix compliant, and it definitely supports many (but not all) of the usual Gnu utilities. I would guess that porting is not too difficult for non-GUI applications. I believe GTK+ is in beta for Be, and that should make it trivial to port GTK+-based applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually think Be would have been a better OS than NeXT for Apple, and the price was much lower. But with 20/20 hindsight, there is no doubt that Steve Jobs has revitalized the company, and he deserves massive credit for it.
As for JLG, I think he's wised up a bit since his days at Apple. He seems to have genuinely changed his mind about being more open over the years.
I, too, wish both of them nothing but the best. MacOS X is likely to be quite impressive, and I look forward to seeing it and giving it a try on my G3.
D
----
- He wasn't welcome. Why struggle to do something when your efforts are clearly not welcome? I think this is a very valid argument. Apple doesn't want him to do it, and with his usual gallic charm, he obeys with a smile. I must admire his composure - typical Slashdot readers would launch an assassination attempt on Chairman Jobs.
- Support Issues. Leaving aside Be's own personal desires, virtually all new software for Be is coming out for Intel, without PowerPC versions. The reality is that the developers have spoken, and Be at this point is really run for the developers. Developers feel that Intel is the future, because it's so cheap and popular. Sadly, they are probably right.
- Apple shouldn't be so close-minded. I know I was considering buying a new blue and white G3, and one of the main reasons I decided against it was that I like Be and wanted a system that ran it. So I bought an Intel system instead. I didn't really want to do it - I would have liked to support Apple over Microsoft-based clone systems. At the same time, I know Apple needs to push MacOS X, and they probably don't want Be to cut into that market. JLG doesn't blame Apple for this; he tells us it's a reasonable business decision.
- Be needs to make money. Actually, Be gets punched both ways here. We criticise it for not doing future PPC versions, because it needs to make a profit, and yet we turn around and critisize it for not making a profit, too. Which is it, making a profit or producing a PPC version few are likely to buy?
- This non-Apple PowerPC stuff is unproven. From the point of view of an average consumer, you can either buy Intel, with tons of software and support from Microsoft, or you can buy PPC, with no support from anyone other than Linux or AIX. Who's going to buy these systems? JLG now markets Be on the basis of coexistance with Windows and MacOS; until these machines can run one of those systems, this "piggyback" strategy won't work. Worse, as I said before, developers are voting for Intel with their feet. So why support the new PPC systems? At best it would fragment the platform and divide developer's interests, just as everything seemed to be coalescing on Intel. I wouldn't want that outcome if I was JLG.
- Be is one of the few thouroughly decent companies in the world of software. People who give Be a fair shake tend to love the product. Be's upgrade policies are more than fair; they're generous. JLG is a bit of a character, and that makes following the company and its exploits fun. How many company chairmen respond personally to your email?
Given that Wintel/WinAMD/etc systems are so cheap and run Be so well, I see little point to PPC other than sentiment. Admittedly that's a powerful force, but it's not going to win Be the mainstream friends it needs to survive.D
----
Advantages of Be:
- Very Good stability. I've had it crash occasionally, but only when I run it completely out of memory. Don't do that and you're at Linux levels of stability.
- Superior multitasking - I find it a much smoother system than Linux.
- Extraordinarily slick look and feel. I think it says something that one of the most popular Enlightenment window manager configurations is the one imitating the BeOS. Rasterman is a genius, and I bow my head to him as a programmer, but the high overhead of the X-Windows system just can't compare to the integrated nature of Be.
- If you know C++, the API is said to be fantastic.
- Cool applications like e-Picture and GoBe Productive make me think the platform has a good long-term future - despite all the "No Apps!" noises, they are coming, and what's there is great. Apps tend to have an original, well-throught out flair which I find very endearing. They still aren't as full featured as Microsoft Word and Excel, but who uses all those features, anyway?
Disadvantages of Be:
- No released version of Netscape yet. Opera is out and works well, but you have to pay to use it past 30 days.
- Hardware support can be probematical. What's there works great, what's not there frustrates users no end. I'd say at least 90% of Be user complaints on the newsgroup are hardware support-related.
Hope that helps. I'd say it's definitely well worth checking out. Incidentally, it may be proprietary, but actually it's quite a bit cheaper to keep up to date than commercial releases of a Linux version.
D
----
What I meant by 'pervasive multi-threading' is the integration of threading in the GUI. Under BeOS, if I have two browser windows open and one is loading a page, I can concurrently type into the other window and/or bring up a new window entirely. I've seen this in other Be programs, so I think it's a feature of the OS.
I don't see that in Netscape for any platform, SGI and Linux included.
D
----
Sadly, I've never owned a NeXT.
:-)
Hopefully, MacOS X will be interesting.
However, this actually bolsters my basic point - NeXT is a closed system, too.
D
----
True. Apple definitely hasn't done as well as one might like in making their systems accessible to the less moneyed.
At the same time, I'm not convinced that PC upgrades are any more cost-effective if you want to get the same level of performance as you'd get with a new system. You can certainly upgrade individual components, as you did, but if you want the performance of a new PC, nothing beats wandering down to the store and buying a new one.
D
----
"Turboflames" that are on topic can contain interesting or insightful remarks.
What I'm talking about is utter dreck, like the fellow who posted 1,000 line copies of the previous discussion, and the people insulting each other's mothers.
D
----
The video editing card for my beige G3 is a third-party card. The only thing closed about the hardware is that Apple's the only company that can make it.
Open hardware tends to drive down prices very fast, but it doesn't seem to lead to innovation. I think this is because consumer demand is not for innovation, but lower prices above all.
You know, it's interesting that the most intriguing hardware comes from closed or partially closed systems. We hear more "cools" and "awesome" when we talk about vendors of closed systems like Apple or SGI. When's the last time we featured an article like "HP comes out with new Pavilion line of PCs"?
Granted, we may not be able to afford some of these "cool" systems. But I have yet to see proof that openness can create something "insanely great" like the Mac or BeOS. And - before you ask - I consider Linux "great". But not insanely so, because it's just an excellent copy of something that already existed. MacOS and BeOS both broke new ground in some way - Mac with the GUI and BeOS with the pervasive multi-threading.
D
----
I don't know about you, but for the most part I find that upgrades are not cost-effective - you won't spend much more if you buy a whole new machine and sell your old one.
I think Mac users got into the habit of doing upgrades during Apple's darkest days, when they were just not responsive to consumer demand. Based on the reaction of people to the new G4, I don't think we can accuse them of that now.
I'm not inclined to think of Apple's action as a good thing - I think it's a mildly bad one. But I'm not sure it warrants the extreme negative reaction it's received so far.
D
----
No tiresome IRQ or compatibility messes.
That's why it's a lot easier to get video editing stuff working on the Mac, and it keeps on working once installed.
Both of those issues are probematical with the PC.
A Mac is still a lot more fun to use than a PC, because it has a far more aesthetically pleasing look and feel. The Windows(tm) interface is both ugly and byzantine (compare what it takes to get TCP/IP networking work on each platform, for instance).
Whenever I need to use mainstream software such as Photoshop, I go gladly to my Mac. I'm glad it's there - and I have Irix, Linux, BeOS and Windows systems.
D
----
An AC post has a default score of 0, which is normally considered 'no score'. You'll only see a "Score: 0" if someone has been moderated down from 1 or up from -1.
There is certainly some anti-AC prejudice. Interestingly enough, I've noticed more abuse from ACs since the moderation point system was created.
D
----
Which is more valuable to you, the operating system files or your own data?
... pity I can't do that for my personal stuff. True, I have a backup, but I'm still going to lose the current day's work.
I don't know about you, but I can always re-install the OS from CD
In short, the original poster had an excellent point. Best way to solve it? A few thoughts:
- Don't allow macros in document files - require that the macros be in program code files linked to documents. When the virus-laden document is emailed, the program code won't go with it. If program code is needed, send both files.
- Don't allow autoexec macros, or have a screen that pops up asking if you want to execute the auto-exec macro. Don't allow the user to switch off this protection.
I think those two changes would go a long way towards killing off macro viruses.
D
----
I'd say there would be little benefit in switching to StarOffice for Windows. It only makes sense to switch if you can move most users to Linux/Unix, since that's bound to substantially reduce "This worked yesterday! It doesn't work now!" type questions. It will increase the "How do I do this?" questions, but only for a while. In my experience, the clueless will still need help, and the clueful will figure out the differences pretty fast.
...
If you consider how expensive IT support is, it might make a lot of sense to do this, assuming StarOffice's functions are comparable.
It's pretty easy to learn a new macro language, and in my one check of StarOffice's, it looked like a virtual clone of MS's - it was so close it felt eerie.
The real disadvantage of Linux is that custom applications based on Access won't run. I wonder if StarDivision, flush with cash, has an Access clone in the works? It would be the next logical step.
Or maybe StarDivision's owners are lounging on a tropical island. I'm still flabbergasted at the price they got from Sun. I would have believed closer to $ 50 million than $ 500 million
D
----
While I don't think Sun is perfect, I doubt that they have the curious combination of utter ruthlessness and rotten-quality products that's made MS so hated. We might fight them anyway out of principle, but I suspect it will be more of a friendly fight. At least that's my hope.
D
----
What if I'm using a library like GD that creates GIFs on the fly? As far as I know, GD has no non-free alternative. I'd like to be able to pay Unisys a reasonable royalty to make my use of GD legal.
(Disclaimer: I don't currently use GD, but I recognize its usefulness for many projects).
D
----
Any idea how much he paid? I'd be surprised if he would have agreed to more than $ 5 a copy, which makes this situation all the more bizarre.
To the other fellow who said that I don't really own Photoshop - didn't I say that I owned a license? The license is shorthand for exactly the type of agreement you're talking about.
D
----
Check out James Gleick's classic essay:
http://www.around.com/microspeak.html
D
----
I think a lot of the anger about this comes out of the obvious lack of realism in the license terms. Adobe Photoshop costs somewhere around $695. If I create an image using Photoshop, it's legal. So why, under any conceivable situation, should I be obligated to pay $ 5,000 for a license, when I could buy the same thing (and get a FREE program!) for $ 695?
Now, I own a legal copy of Photoshop. Let's say I want to do some image processing on my Unix machine, so I use the GIMP to create a GIF file. Since I've already paid Unisys for a license to distribute GIFs by purchasing Photoshop, should I have to pay again for the GIMP?
Now, I'm sure most of the revenues from Photoshop go to Adobe, not Unisys. Let's say I don't have a legal copy of Photoshop, and I want to make my copy of the GIMP legal to produce GIFs. Would it not be reasonable for me to write, say, a $10 check to Unisys to pay for LZW? I really doubt they get more than that from Adobe for the license. If I was using the GIMP to produce GIFs, I wouldn't mind writing that check - $ 10 isn't exactly going to send me to the bankruptcy court or anything.
Bluntly, I don't think even a small fraction of those who run non-commercial web sites have $5,000 for a license, no matter what program they used to create GIFs. As a result, I believe the Unisys program to be hopelessly wrong-headed, even if it's directed only at people without licenses of any kind.
Finally, I'll bet most people simply don't know if they own a license or not. Say I create an animated GIF using e-Picture on the BeOS. Beatware is a tiny company that sells a $149 package. Do they have a license? How the heck should I know? I certainly don't know how they run their business! What about Paint Shop Pro, which many people buy for around $ 79? Does that include a license? Search me. I certainly don't think it's fair for Unisys to come out with this kind of nebulous warning without explaining what software they're targeting and why.
I suppose Boutell.com's GD library was a major violator here. Let's say you use GD to dynamically create GIFs. I'd argue that you owe Unisys $10 or so, just as I mentioned above for the GIMP. If there was a reasonable program to collect this money, I think most of us would pay.
Unisys doesn't need to make the software free, but they need to be reasonable and fair about their license conditions. Trying to charge $5,000 to sites that have gross revenues of $ 0 is insane, no matter what use they make of the technology. Charging them $10 would make Unisys a little money, make us lose a little money, and everyone would be more or less happy.
D
----
If that's true, why did Sun pay over half a billion dollars for the company?
That seems like a lot for a project that appears to be as revenue-free as they come. Not that they shouldn't have bought it - the price just seems amazingly high.
D
----
Actually, it looks like if you have any kind of advertising on your site - even pathetically low-paying things like Amazon link banners and Commonwealth Network ads - you have to negotiate with them.
What we should really do is ask to negotiate a license, write down our revenues as $ 50 a month, and see what they do. After all, it would cost their attorneys more to draft the agreement than they'd get in a million lifetimes!
What amazes me is that a big corporation like Unisys, with plenty of legal firepower and what-not, does this kind of thing without thinking it through. Can they really afford to negotiate all the contracts they plan to negotiate, or file all the lawsuits they plan to file?
I doubt it. Hey, not even the Church of Scientology could.
D
----
How could you look for a sugar daddy and still want to support yourself? Or are you saying that you fantasize about it but wouldn't do it?
...
I'm confused
D
----
The best fonts in the Unix world are, unsurprisingly, on SGI machines. You can pick up a used Indigo2 for pretty cheap nowadays, and use it as a front-end for your Linux systems. That's what I did, and I'm happy as a clam.
:-(.
l
I just wish people wouldn't keep on using Helvetica on their web pages - that's the only bad SGI font
The Enlightenment window manager comes with some nice readable fonts - you might want to try that too.
D
My document on buying a used SGI machine:
http://www.amazing.com/internet/old-sgi-faq.htm
----
about having to read about this on Yahoo, while nothing appears on the Amazon site about it.
It makes me feel this is just a trial balloon, so if this concerns you, be sure to keep those cards and letters coming.
D
----
Several reasons:
.doc format without informing you, and without giving you a chance to opt out.
- You install distributed.net expressly to send stuff back. Distributed.net tells you explicitly that it is doing so.
- Distributed.net only sends things back that are related to its mission.
- You install Microsoft Office to do word processing, create spreadsheets or run a database. None of these missions require an ongoing information exchange with Microsoft.
- Microsoft includes this information in their
- Microsoft is a large company that many people distrust becuase of similar fiascos in the past. As a result, our comfort level with giving them information is likely to be lower than with distributed.
D
----
I almost did when I wrote my original post, but I didn't want to get too verbose.
My understanding is that BeOS is genuinely a completely new kernel, designed from the ground up for use with multiple processors. I don't think the Be thread/process system owes much to Unix.
Be's window system is brand new and owes nothing to X-Windows. In terms of speed, this is a major advantage - the system definitely has a much crisper, zippier feeling than any other OS. The disadvantage, of course, is that it starts from ground zero in applications - X applications are not compatible without an X compatibility layer (which does exist; I don't know about its performance).
However, I believe Be is posix compliant, and it definitely supports many (but not all) of the usual Gnu utilities. I would guess that porting is not too difficult for non-GUI applications. I believe GTK+ is in beta for Be, and that should make it trivial to port GTK+-based applications.
D
----