the original post refared to the period where Scully was incharge of apple, back in the mid80 to early 90s - where Apple could have monopolised the PC market easly - by pricing thier machines to get 20% profit margins and not 50-60% as Scully priced them.
THERE WAS NO COMPETITION from the PC market to the mac os at that time. NONE. what? DOS4? windows 1.0?! there was no GUI worth talking about on the PC, untill win 3.11 (which was still years behind the mac) if apple would have shaved the prices down, if not by streamlining the manufacturing by outsoursing, then by licencing the os - they WOULD have control over the PC market today.
you rase a valid point there. I should have chosen my words with more care in my original post.
I was trying to be somewhat sarcastic in my original post, I understand how my true intentions might have been missed. Though I think the use of the word "smut" should give you a good indication what my true feelings are about censorship, in the context of art, is.
"smut" was the term used by the group of self-rightcus-bible-belt-mothers who forced the recording industry to put those "explicit lyrics" stickers on CD's back at the end of the 80s.
but what you describe is not 'power' as such but 'influence'. 'power' is associated with violence, self interests or interests of a segrageted group - be it political, economical, racial etc. RMS and FSF do not fit that description. the group whos interests the fsf protects are everyone - some people might not understand that they are (some people on ms's payroll, for example..) but they are non the less.
I most definetly think that in 10, 50, 100 years RMS will be viewed as one of the most influencial people of the late 20th century, and early 21st.
of coarse it depends who has control (or the power) over the 'ministries of truth' of the time.
other people commented about this not being sec issue - against the company. and they are right.
but I think it might be a SEC issue with INDIVIDUALS in the company - in some ways this might be worse (from a moral point, not a legal one) then a pump and dump, or insider traiding issue.
It could be argued that individuals, such as SCO's CEO might have INTENTIONALLY started a unfounded law suit that would fail to gain interest in the company and THEN dump the stock.
so share holders might want to persue a class action suit against those people in SCO managment who are selling stocks now.
But this will have to wait untill the stock tanks..
this disticntion is true from a technological POV' but not a legal POV.
embedding stuff in browsers and embedding something in s word processor or an OS is not the same. they are differant markets. and the technology IS differant. OLE is not the same as activeX.
Not to say that I don't this the suit is silly, it is.
a Ray Noorda company buying Ximian? is this a good thing for the comunity, seeing what another Ray Noorda company is doing to the linux comunity these days?
"I'm delighted to take on this role," Bainwol said in a statement. "What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"
I find it hard to believe that mike oldfield's amarok will cost.99c (it has only one 60minute track)... the 7 minute limit will probably allow albums like that to sell for the "normal" price.
(it's a great album btw, one of my all time favs!)
his is very big news. Perticularly if you follow the history of the PC buisness and MS. BAck in the end of the 80s balmer made a hugh personal gamble - he basicly mortgaged his house and took every lown he could get to buy as many MS shares as he could. HE BELIEVED IN THE COMPANY.
what's the really interesting announcement for unix geeks..
not mentuned at the keynote at all, but a press release is out:http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030107/sftu107_1.h tml
"allows X11-based applications to run side-by-side with native Mac OS X applications on the same desktop and makes it even simpler to port X11-based applications to the Mac®. Apple's implementation of X11, the common windowing environment for UNIX operating systems, is easy to install and is optimized to take full advantage of Apple's innovative Quartz(TM) graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics for fast text scrolling, dynamic dragging and resizing of windows, and stunning 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering"
yup. that was the real reason why apple is where it is. But technicly apple could'nt develop appleII compatibility into the mac. The reason,afaik, was that there was simply enough memory in the hardware to do it.
It should have come in advanced versions of the mac os, but didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
what are you moderators smoking?
the original post refared to the period where Scully was incharge of apple, back in the mid80 to early 90s - where Apple could have monopolised the PC market easly - by pricing thier machines to get 20% profit margins and not 50-60% as Scully priced them.
THERE WAS NO COMPETITION from the PC market to the mac os at that time. NONE. what? DOS4? windows 1.0?! there was no GUI worth talking about on the PC, untill win 3.11 (which was still years behind the mac) if apple would have shaved the prices down, if not by streamlining the manufacturing by outsoursing, then by licencing the os - they WOULD have control over the PC market today.
AFAIK, transmeta, when in the secretive startup mode, did background checks on potential employees candidates.
If they worked in intel, they were rejected.
The RIAA talk about P2P and child porn, but they are the ones scruing 12 year old girls.
you rase a valid point there. I should have chosen my words with more care in my original post.
I was trying to be somewhat sarcastic in my original post, I understand how my true intentions might have been missed. Though I think the use of the word "smut" should give you a good indication what my true feelings are about censorship, in the context of art, is.
"smut" was the term used by the group of self-rightcus-bible-belt-mothers who forced the recording industry to put those "explicit lyrics" stickers on CD's back at the end of the 80s.
"warning this contains explicite..."
interesting. since the RIAA's members are promoting so much smut this days which is passed as "art" by them - eminem anyone?
This strategy seems bizzar to me. the RIAA should know what those "warning - explicite lyrics" stickers did for rap and hip hop..
it's
f) you claim you own the car and sue your friend for illegaly registring ithe car in his own name.
you all went through in the past..
In the present I have to sift through many comments on slashdot of geeks spouting Monty Python referances over, and over, and over again.
read the story caption again.
but what you describe is not 'power' as such but 'influence'. 'power' is associated with violence, self interests or interests of a segrageted group - be it political, economical, racial etc. RMS and FSF do not fit that description. the group whos interests the fsf protects are everyone - some people might not understand that they are (some people on ms's payroll, for example..) but they are non the less.
I most definetly think that in 10, 50, 100 years RMS will be viewed as one of the most influencial people of the late 20th century, and early 21st.
of coarse it depends who has control (or the power) over the 'ministries of truth' of the time.
even though it breaks out of the nigerian scam idiom, it works better in the context of the SCO scam. I vote for the change.
not that my vote is worth much..
other people commented about this not being sec issue - against the company. and they are right.
but I think it might be a SEC issue with INDIVIDUALS in the company - in some ways this might be worse (from a moral point, not a legal one) then a pump and dump, or insider traiding issue.
It could be argued that individuals, such as SCO's CEO might have INTENTIONALLY started a unfounded law suit that would fail to gain interest in the company and THEN dump the stock.
so share holders might want to persue a class action suit against those people in SCO managment who are selling stocks now.
But this will have to wait untill the stock tanks..
this disticntion is true from a technological POV' but not a legal POV.
embedding stuff in browsers and embedding something in s word processor or an OS is not the same. they are differant markets. and the technology IS differant. OLE is not the same as activeX.
Not to say that I don't this the suit is silly, it is.
hmmm, I'm not sure about this at all.
a Ray Noorda company buying Ximian? is this a good thing for the comunity, seeing what another Ray Noorda company is doing to the linux comunity these days?
"I'm delighted to take on this role," Bainwol said in a statement. "What could be more rewarding than helping to promote two great American traditions: music and property rights?"
now RIAA will want to copyright music itself!
"it took about 6 months each for g3 and g4 to get into laptops."
not totaly correct. the first g3 laptop was announced the same day the g3 desktops were announced.
I find it hard to believe that mike oldfield's amarok will cost .99c (it has only one 60minute track)... the 7 minute limit will probably allow albums like that to sell for the "normal" price.
(it's a great album btw, one of my all time favs!)
his is very big news. Perticularly if you follow the history of the PC buisness and MS. BAck in the end of the 80s balmer made a hugh personal gamble - he basicly mortgaged his house and took every lown he could get to buy as many MS shares as he could. HE BELIEVED IN THE COMPANY.
Now he is selling 10%?!
which means....
No he isn't. He got kicked out of microsoft.
The RIAA may be stupid, but thretening people who will actually PAY for music is something that even the RIAA are not dence enough to try.
Apple, on the other hand...
nahh..
elektron, the company that makes the sidstation is running out of SID chips..
last chance to get them..
you know that the rolands VS series don't have that option..
after cellphones, another star trek technology about to make it to our lives..
what's the really interesting announcement for unix geeks..
h tml
not mentuned at the keynote at all, but a press release is out:http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030107/sftu107_1.
"allows X11-based applications to run side-by-side with native Mac OS X applications on the same desktop and makes it even simpler to port X11-based applications to the Mac®. Apple's implementation of X11, the common windowing environment for UNIX operating systems, is easy to install and is optimized to take full advantage of Apple's innovative Quartz(TM) graphics system to deliver hardware-accelerated 2D and 3D graphics for fast text scrolling, dynamic dragging and resizing of windows, and stunning 3D animation through OpenGL Direct Rendering"
yuch..
;-)
I would like Anne Dudley to do the music, though..
yup. that was the real reason why apple is where it is. But technicly apple could'nt develop appleII compatibility into the mac. The reason ,afaik, was that there was simply enough memory in the hardware to do it.
It should have come in advanced versions of the mac os, but didn't.