Perhaps even more important is that AIR applications are platform-agnostic. They operate almost exactly the same on both Windows and Mac platforms with only small differences, keyboard shortcuts being the most obvious. Adobe expects a Linux version of the AIR runtime to be completed in the coming months.
I only mention it as the article says the platform is agnostic and being moved to linux. If it gets ported (which may not be possible, as photoshop is more processor intensive than almost any office suite), then that is one of the most common arguments about moving to Linux out the window.
As for the web centered app... with all these apps for the web coming out, who is waiting for the inevitable recurrence of the network computer?
Instead of working on an office suite, why not use the aforementioned "Rich" client to bring Creative Suite, Premiere, etc over to Linux? They seem to imply that Linux is a viable market since the platform is "agnostic".
Yes, I know you can use the GIMP, but Photoshop is industry standard, and a lot of companies require it, so no fighting about which is better. It may just help those companies move to Linux that much faster, and isn't THAT a good thing?
Since when does Michael Moore agree with Fox?... Or anyone for that matter...
In fact, you list complete opposite sides of the spectrum here. Although, if you are saying that both are wrong, but the truth is in the middle, THAT I agree with. However, there is no truly unbiased news agency (even the revered BBC has been shown to be biased at times), so I am not sure that being somewhere else would truly help. Less biased, maybe, but certainly not unbiased.
I am not saying this about you, but as a general rule, people believe something is unbiased only when it agrees with their own bias, and that it is overly biased when it doesn't agree with their Worldview.
And I do care about the rest of the world, and it is certainly important. Hence the reason Darfur needs to be a more pressing matter, at least here in the states. I don't know what foreign news sources are saying about it, but here it is not enough - else people would be up in arms over it.
I have never heard that before. Do you have any evidence of this? If so, I would like to look into it. I have no problem with people proving me wrong... but I prefer proof. The proff that people in Washington believed there were WMD's is what I was pointing to, regardless as to the veracity of the belief.
As a side note - do you mean that since the program's were finished, that the items made from those programs also were gone?
Several quotes are much more current than 1998, which is why I included that link. As I said in one of my other replies, the belief they were there was "common knowledge" among the people in Washington - but "common" is not equal to "Correct"
The site is not biased, it is merely confirming the truth of the quotes, although I assume the original writer of the email in questions was biased. Then again, everyone has some bias, whether right, left, secular humanist, etc.
As for my other comments, when I refer to we all, I meant we as in American government. I apologize to any non-Americans, it was not meant to to allude to you, as I am pretty sure you don't get Fox news anyway, although I admit I am pretty sure Britain's government had the same belief in WMD's. As for everyone else, I don't know what you thought, or what the inspectors did or did not tell you. What I am sick of is people saying they never believed they were there before the war, when there was a prevalence of "common knowledge" (not correct, but common) that there were.
As for the below comment that it is about believing there were WMD's now, that I agree with. Everything I heard was that none were found. Anyone who thinks they were found, is misinformed. Whether they ever existed, exist, or whatever, I don't think we will ever know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fox news definately has some perspective issues - but WMD's isn't one of them. Even CLINTON believed they were there. Not trying to start a war - I am just sick of hearing about WMD's, when we all thought they were there. Iraq as the cause for 9/11 though - that's a crazy concept.
According to this article: http://ajax.phpmagazine.net/2007/05/zimbra_and_com cast_new_communi.html Comcast has Zimbra do it's email, voicemail, etc. Zimbra is based off of Linux, and runs only on Linux/Macs. Assuming that the basis for the Comcast portal is the zimbra client, it will also run better on Firefox, as Zimbra has known slowdowns with IE, which is something they are working on for 5.0 http://www.zimbra.com/products/roadmap.html.
Comcast focuses on its biggest market first. No one can disagree that Windows has the largest market share, so that is what Comcast will do most of its training and development towards. Plus, it may be easier to rebrand IE anyway.
I agree with the above statement that the website probably hasn't been updated. However, it is a jump from the company doing what is easiest for them to their actions being malicious. Instead of assuming everyone is out to get us (They only support IE? Then they must want to destroy Mac and Linux!), let's look at their real motivations - the bottom line with the almighty dollar for the shareholder.
Slashdot Mirror
From article:
I only mention it as the article says the platform is agnostic and being moved to linux. If it gets ported (which may not be possible, as photoshop is more processor intensive than almost any office suite), then that is one of the most common arguments about moving to Linux out the window.
As for the web centered app... with all these apps for the web coming out, who is waiting for the inevitable recurrence of the network computer?
If using Gnome, also try planner. live.gnome.org/Planner. One listed on the wikipedia article is Windows only, the other two are KDE.
Instead of working on an office suite, why not use the aforementioned "Rich" client to bring Creative Suite, Premiere, etc over to Linux? They seem to imply that Linux is a viable market since the platform is "agnostic". Yes, I know you can use the GIMP, but Photoshop is industry standard, and a lot of companies require it, so no fighting about which is better. It may just help those companies move to Linux that much faster, and isn't THAT a good thing?
Since when does Michael Moore agree with Fox? ... Or anyone for that matter...
In fact, you list complete opposite sides of the spectrum here. Although, if you are saying that both are wrong, but the truth is in the middle, THAT I agree with. However, there is no truly unbiased news agency (even the revered BBC has been shown to be biased at times), so I am not sure that being somewhere else would truly help. Less biased, maybe, but certainly not unbiased.
I am not saying this about you, but as a general rule, people believe something is unbiased only when it agrees with their own bias, and that it is overly biased when it doesn't agree with their Worldview.
And I do care about the rest of the world, and it is certainly important. Hence the reason Darfur needs to be a more pressing matter, at least here in the states. I don't know what foreign news sources are saying about it, but here it is not enough - else people would be up in arms over it.
I have never heard that before. Do you have any evidence of this? If so, I would like to look into it. I have no problem with people proving me wrong... but I prefer proof. The proff that people in Washington believed there were WMD's is what I was pointing to, regardless as to the veracity of the belief.
As a side note - do you mean that since the program's were finished, that the items made from those programs also were gone?
Several quotes are much more current than 1998, which is why I included that link. As I said in one of my other replies, the belief they were there was "common knowledge" among the people in Washington - but "common" is not equal to "Correct"
Is Snopes unbiased enough for you?
If so: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
The site is not biased, it is merely confirming the truth of the quotes, although I assume the original writer of the email in questions was biased. Then again, everyone has some bias, whether right, left, secular humanist, etc.
As for my other comments, when I refer to we all, I meant we as in American government. I apologize to any non-Americans, it was not meant to to allude to you, as I am pretty sure you don't get Fox news anyway, although I admit I am pretty sure Britain's government had the same belief in WMD's. As for everyone else, I don't know what you thought, or what the inspectors did or did not tell you. What I am sick of is people saying they never believed they were there before the war, when there was a prevalence of "common knowledge" (not correct, but common) that there were.
As for the below comment that it is about believing there were WMD's now, that I agree with. Everything I heard was that none were found. Anyone who thinks they were found, is misinformed. Whether they ever existed, exist, or whatever, I don't think we will ever know beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied. htm
According to this article: http://ajax.phpmagazine.net/2007/05/zimbra_and_com cast_new_communi.html Comcast has Zimbra do it's email, voicemail, etc. Zimbra is based off of Linux, and runs only on Linux/Macs. Assuming that the basis for the Comcast portal is the zimbra client, it will also run better on Firefox, as Zimbra has known slowdowns with IE, which is something they are working on for 5.0 http://www.zimbra.com/products/roadmap.html.
Comcast focuses on its biggest market first. No one can disagree that Windows has the largest market share, so that is what Comcast will do most of its training and development towards. Plus, it may be easier to rebrand IE anyway.
I agree with the above statement that the website probably hasn't been updated. However, it is a jump from the company doing what is easiest for them to their actions being malicious. Instead of assuming everyone is out to get us (They only support IE? Then they must want to destroy Mac and Linux!), let's look at their real motivations - the bottom line with the almighty dollar for the shareholder.