Yeah I was thinking the same thing about the cost of moving material Earth2moon. Seems like it would be cheaper.
But what about luner smelting? Today, iron and aluminum smelting is done with furnaces heated with electricity, so maybe this could be done on the moon with nuculear or even solar power.
Then just pack blocks of metal into huge spheres covered with that space shuttle heat shield stuff, and use small rockets to drop 'em into the ocean.
Course, you'd have to figure out how to make 'em float.
Seriously, name me -=ONE=- app they should give a fuck about, please. I'm very interested to hear what you think those poor deluded
Well, you could pay $500 dollars for Framemaker for the Mac, or use the Linux version for free. You could pay $2000 dollars for 3D studio max for the Mac (If there is even a Mac port) or use Blender for free on Linux. Then there's Houdini, which certainly will not run on a Mac. It is ported to NT, IRIX and Linux.
I've given you examples that exist today, but you're talking about what OS X will do in the future. Fine. I'll talk more about the future too.
Linux apps are being developed by many companies today. While KDE and GNOME aren't ready for most people yet, there is no denying that everyday they look better and become more stable.
So now we're both talking about what's to come in the future, basing our assumptions on current trends. You are assuming that Apple will succeed in taming Unix, which is the same battle GNOME and KDE are waging. The difference is Linux is ported to over 150 different processors TODAY, while Mac dweebs are crapping their pants because a small portion of OS X runs on the world's most common instruction set.
But let's forget Linux for a second. How is OS X going to compete with win2000 in the desktop space? There are very few apps that are available for Mac and not win2k. Win2k is really stable. And win2k is available now! And the apps are available now! Even native ones. All for much cheaper hardware. OS X doesn't really exist yet. No native ports for major software packages exist yet either. All the apps that it can run are for the old OS, so where's the advantage? Multiple blue boxes? So what? I've seen a blue box crash that took down the whole machine. So we're looking at a rather large gap of time before OS X is ready for the masses. Where will win2k be then?
The desktop space is going to giveway to devices. Apple is wasting time with OS X when they should just milk OS 9.x to the bone and put most resources on mp3 players, web pads, game consoles and office productivity stations. To make such things you need an OS that will run on these small new chips-- and today Linux and all the development tools plus drivers are already ported. So why do it again? Use Linux, and use the Apple GUI in these systems.
I think it's a safe bet that OS X and GNOME will be ready for general consumption around the same time. But GNOME will have a huge advantage: yeah one more time, it'll run on any platform. From devices to workstations. Neither M$ or Apple can compete with that.
Sure, the hardcore animation or development workstation will not disappear. It will be used for the kind of apps I first mentioned. If Apple wants to battle for that niche, they have to compete with both M$ and Linux. If OS X used X, then Apple would only have to compete with M$, because if OS X used X, porting Linux software to OS X would be much easier.
Today, Apple is a dying breed. Darwin, like Next, is backasswards. No X support! That means no Linux or BSD apps that use X will work.
Apple is not in a good position. M$ is much further along with their next gen OS (You can buy Win2000 now, and it runs most of the win9x apps, including many DX games, it has SMP, it is nearly ported to 64bit arch.)
Meanwhile, Linux has two competing desktops that look better every hour. GNOME has a huge library for app building (Not just the GTK, but lots of modules for XML, Postscript, CORBA, etc.) Linux has Cygnus (now owned by RedHat) porting GCC to every processor known to man, ~150 so far, including the Alpha and Intel's 64 bit copperminefield whatever the hell.
So Apple has to sell overpriced machines for an OS that runs apps specifically for their OS, which is competing with two next gen OSes that are much further along in development and will run on hardware that is still cheaper and certainly much more abundant.
If Apple wants to survive, they need to can OS X and start building embedded systems that use Linux with a ported Mac GUI. The iMac is proof that they have talent in the design department.
And what is this giberish about no Linux apps? Shush your Mac freak whimpering! Corel will have DRAW and Paint out for Linux soon. I've been using DRAW on Win9x for years, and I like it much better then Illustrator. And do you not know that three complete office packages are out for Linux? Today?
Taking the asumption that many apps will fade from the desktop and reincarnate themselves as single devices, keeping X from these products would seriously limit their functionality.
A consumer's office suite/browser module and gaming/multimedia module should be able to output to a wide variety of display servers and be controled by a wide variety of input servers.
Only X makes this possible.
The analog RGB or VGA jack on your computer or gaming machine is going to be replaced by a jack for IEEE1394 or giga ethernet. Both are fast enough even for DV, which is 960x540 pixels at 30fps.
Because X has been around for so long makes X look old fashioned, but I think it's the future.
Yeah, I have several gigs of MP3s-- they're 100% legal and I don't own any CDs. I just download music from places like mp3.com. I'd much rather listen to the creative stuff I find on the net then bland corporate shwag like "bush."
Even though the industry doesn't realize yet, you are still giving them power by even pirating the music they produce. Eventually, all record companies will realize that they need to change their business model, and all the (big lablel) music you're listen to right now is essencially advertising for their new online venture. With their horrible treatment of artists and fascist lobbying efforts (such as killing the DAT), these people don't deserve your attention.
For those of you out there that believe in the Internet and MP3s, go to places like mp3.com, find some music you like, and then catch their live show when they come to your town. Buy a T-shirt, a CD or maybe a video while you're there. Nobody can pirate a live show!
Excellent idea! This project needs to started now. Publishing the results on a web page would creating a delicious uproar. Email VoodooBird if you want to help:
matt dot miller at parliamentDOTsaDOTgovDOTau
Under the law, corps are considered individuals
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 2
The recent fear mongering has a premise that is idealogical: only individuals can be individuals.
Legally, this is incorrect. In order for the described exploit to work, those wishing to use the proprietary code would have to encorporate, which is not a simple feat.
A vague "organization" would not have the legal standing to use the described exploit. Furthermore, any use of the proprietary code outside of the agrigate could be considered illegal, as it is being used outside the corporation.
Getting people to jump on the bandwagon is the point. I read a post a few pages up that blasted Corel for it's attempt at a pure Java office suite, which they dropped when Java lost its luster.
This is the best the Open Source community can hope for. If companies began to port their products to Linux, then lose interest when after three years Linux goes nowhere, who can blame the company for giving up?
People who are moaning for a Linux port and simultaniously critizing the results as a sell-out bandwagon effort need to stop and figure out what side they're on.
This software is top notch. I'm using it to edit a documentary about Linux. Go to the site to download some clips and see what bcast2000 is capable of producing.
codecs are not the problem. mpeg is open and works just as good as MS and Real's. It is streamable. Check out mpeg.org for more info. Somebody just needs to write the code. Too bad I don't know how.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Slashdot is not CNN or ABC. This is good. That's why you read it.
2) All posts bitching about today being a "waste of advertising dollars" are evidence that the post is a false statement. Think about it.
3) This is the funniest shit I've read on the net in years. A hell of a lot funnier then anything next to foot icon. Nice one slashdot!
Happy April 1, you fools! Be sure and check out the new addition to google!
Yeah I was thinking the same thing about the cost of moving material Earth2moon. Seems like it would be cheaper.
But what about luner smelting? Today, iron and aluminum smelting is done with furnaces heated with electricity, so maybe this could be done on the moon with nuculear or even solar power.
Then just pack blocks of metal into huge spheres covered with that space shuttle heat shield stuff, and use small rockets to drop 'em into the ocean.
Course, you'd have to figure out how to make 'em float.
Seriously, name me -=ONE=- app they should give a fuck about, please. I'm very interested to hear what you think those poor deluded
Well, you could pay $500 dollars for Framemaker for the Mac, or use the Linux version for free. You could pay $2000 dollars for 3D studio max for the Mac (If there is even a Mac port) or use Blender for free on Linux. Then there's Houdini, which certainly will not run on a Mac. It is ported to NT, IRIX and Linux.
I've given you examples that exist today, but you're talking about what OS X will do in the future. Fine. I'll talk more about the future too.
Linux apps are being developed by many companies today. While KDE and GNOME aren't ready for most people yet, there is no denying that everyday they look better and become more stable.
So now we're both talking about what's to come in the future, basing our assumptions on current trends. You are assuming that Apple will succeed in taming Unix, which is the same battle GNOME and KDE are waging. The difference is Linux is ported to over 150 different processors TODAY, while Mac dweebs are crapping their pants because a small portion of OS X runs on the world's most common instruction set.
But let's forget Linux for a second. How is OS X going to compete with win2000 in the desktop space? There are very few apps that are available for Mac and not win2k. Win2k is really stable. And win2k is available now! And the apps are available now! Even native ones. All for much cheaper hardware. OS X doesn't really exist yet. No native ports for major software packages exist yet either. All the apps that it can run are for the old OS, so where's the advantage? Multiple blue boxes? So what? I've seen a blue box crash that took down the whole machine. So we're looking at a rather large gap of time before OS X is ready for the masses. Where will win2k be then?
The desktop space is going to giveway to devices. Apple is wasting time with OS X when they should just milk OS 9.x to the bone and put most resources on mp3 players, web pads, game consoles and office productivity stations. To make such things you need an OS that will run on these small new chips-- and today Linux and all the development tools plus drivers are already ported. So why do it again? Use Linux, and use the Apple GUI in these systems.
I think it's a safe bet that OS X and GNOME will be ready for general consumption around the same time. But GNOME will have a huge advantage: yeah one more time, it'll run on any platform. From devices to workstations. Neither M$ or Apple can compete with that.
Sure, the hardcore animation or development workstation will not disappear. It will be used for the kind of apps I first mentioned. If Apple wants to battle for that niche, they have to compete with both M$ and Linux. If OS X used X, then Apple would only have to compete with M$, because if OS X used X, porting Linux software to OS X would be much easier.
Today, Apple is a dying breed. Darwin, like Next, is backasswards. No X support! That means no Linux or BSD apps that use X will work.
Apple is not in a good position. M$ is much further along with their next gen OS (You can buy Win2000 now, and it runs most of the win9x apps, including many DX games, it has SMP, it is nearly ported to 64bit arch.)
Meanwhile, Linux has two competing desktops that look better every hour. GNOME has a huge library for app building (Not just the GTK, but lots of modules for XML, Postscript, CORBA, etc.) Linux has Cygnus (now owned by RedHat) porting GCC to every processor known to man, ~150 so far, including the Alpha and Intel's 64 bit copperminefield whatever the hell.
So Apple has to sell overpriced machines for an OS that runs apps specifically for their OS, which is competing with two next gen OSes that are much further along in development and will run on hardware that is still cheaper and certainly much more abundant.
If Apple wants to survive, they need to can OS X and start building embedded systems that use Linux with a ported Mac GUI. The iMac is proof that they have talent in the design department.
And what is this giberish about no Linux apps? Shush your Mac freak whimpering! Corel will have DRAW and Paint out for Linux soon. I've been using DRAW on Win9x for years, and I like it much better then Illustrator. And do you not know that three complete office packages are out for Linux? Today?
Taking the asumption that many apps will fade from the desktop and reincarnate themselves as single devices, keeping X from these products would seriously limit their functionality.
A consumer's office suite/browser module and gaming/multimedia module should be able to output to a wide variety of display servers and be controled by a wide variety of input servers.
Only X makes this possible.
The analog RGB or VGA jack on your computer or gaming machine is going to be replaced by a jack for IEEE1394 or giga ethernet. Both are fast enough even for DV, which is 960x540 pixels at 30fps.
Because X has been around for so long makes X look old fashioned, but I think it's the future.
Yeah, I have several gigs of MP3s-- they're 100% legal and I don't own any CDs. I just download music from places like mp3.com. I'd much rather listen to the creative stuff I find on the net then bland corporate shwag like "bush."
Even though the industry doesn't realize yet, you are still giving them power by even pirating the music they produce. Eventually, all record companies will realize that they need to change their business model, and all the (big lablel) music you're listen to right now is essencially advertising for their new online venture. With their horrible treatment of artists and fascist lobbying efforts (such as killing the DAT), these people don't deserve your attention.
For those of you out there that believe in the Internet and MP3s, go to places like mp3.com, find some music you like, and then catch their live show when they come to your town. Buy a T-shirt, a CD or maybe a video while you're there. Nobody can pirate a live show!
Excellent idea! This project needs to started now. Publishing the results on a web page would creating a delicious uproar. Email VoodooBird if you want to help:
matt dot miller at parliamentDOTsaDOTgovDOTau
Legally, this is incorrect. In order for the described exploit to work, those wishing to use the proprietary code would have to encorporate, which is not a simple feat.
A vague "organization" would not have the legal standing to use the described exploit. Furthermore, any use of the proprietary code outside of the agrigate could be considered illegal, as it is being used outside the corporation.
Getting people to jump on the bandwagon is the point. I read a post a few pages up that blasted Corel for it's attempt at a pure Java office suite, which they dropped when Java lost its luster.
This is the best the Open Source community can hope for. If companies began to port their products to Linux, then lose interest when after three years Linux goes nowhere, who can blame the company for giving up?
People who are moaning for a Linux port and simultaniously critizing the results as a sell-out bandwagon effort need to stop and figure out what side they're on.
This software is top notch. I'm using it to edit a documentary about Linux. Go to the site to download some clips and see what bcast2000 is capable of producing.
codecs are not the problem. mpeg is open and works just as good as MS and Real's. It is streamable. Check out mpeg.org for more info. Somebody just needs to write the code. Too bad I don't know how.