Apple switching from PPC to x86 would be a huge boon for Linux.
For one thing - the Software Vendors (Adobe in particular) will not put up with another migration. The migration to OpenStep was a non-starter for them, and was the major reason for Apple to develop Carbon.
It would be plain stupid to rewrite the whole OS using.NET - not only would that delay the shipping process, what added value would it mean to the customer?
If MS is trying to tell it's customers to port everything over to.NET because the time up front will pay off later in maintainability and expandability, yet they're not willing to do it themselves (eat their own dogfood) then what does that tell you about the supposed benefits of.NET?
But their managers would deserve to be fired if they started wholesale rewriting of millions of loc of C++ just because there's a bunch of new toys to play with.
Those managers SHOULD deserve to be fired if they didn't invest a small amount of time refactoring/porting to.NET up front, in order to reap the supposed benefits of maintainability later on.
Especially if the effort was already as far behind schedule as Longhorn is. I mean, what are these guys DOING? Spending their days playing lots of fooseball in the cafeteria?
.NET does not solve the dll hell problem (they said it would.)
Damn right. Just to PLAY WITH.NET development I have to:
1. Have a Windows 2000 or later machine, running fairly recent $$$ hardware. 2. Install SQL Server. 3. Install Visual Studio.NET. 4. Install ISS. 5. Install a bunch of other service packs and crap.
To play with Java development I need: 1. Any hardware running just about any OS you can think of. 2. Java SDK. 3. A text editor.
Barrier to entry for the.NET dabbler is HUGE.
If I'm evaulating a new programming language/framework/environment, it better not take me two days and 5 CD installs (fraught with peril of messing up my machine's configuration (ie. dll-hell) forevermore amen).
If you were to try to build a bomb from these instructions, it wouldn't work.
wow! Thanks for the tip! I was going to detonate mine in a plywood box, but now I see I need a heavy bomb casing. Maybe I'll try depleted uranium or something. . . got lots of that left over. Gee, that wouldn't react with the neutrons, would it?
I'm a proponent of legalized file-swapping/P2P, but even I don't equate the impact of over-zealous IP law with that of Prohibition.
The Mafia had running gun-battles with tommy guns with the police through the streets of Chicago.
-to say nothing of the devestation that modern drug prohibition has wrought on our society.
File-swapping is a tempest in a teapot compared to the impact of drug/alcohol prohibition. My biggest concern is that file-swapping prohibition might lead to erosion of free speech and fair use rights, and amounts to government pandering to what should be an illegal cartel (RIAA/MPAA/BSA).
The two situations compared amount to a false analogy.
It is no limitation upon property rights or freedom of contract to require that when men receive from government the privilege of doing business under corporate form, which frees them from individual responsibility, and enables them to call into their enterprises the capital of the public, they shall do so upon absolutely truthful representations as to the value of the property in which the capital is to be invested. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be regulated if they are found to exercise a license working to the public injury. It should be as much the aim of those who seek for social betterment to rid the business world of crimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimes of violence. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
People can freely do business all they want. But a Corporate Charter exempts one from certain rules and taxes, and more importantly, liabilities (ie. RESPONSIBILITIES) - and it is, indeed a PRIVILEGE granted (and FAR too infrequently, revoked) by the government.
Governments know NOTHING about running business and should keep their noses out.
Judging by the crappy corporate performance and layoffs (along with massive runup in exec compensation) over the past 5 years, I'd say private business knows NOTHING about running businesses either.
If an employer makes a bad decision letting a good guy go, his competitors will benefit.
. . . and the exec who oversaw the layoff will also benefit with a fat bonus. . .
If IBM is wrong then the company will suffer and the worker will find a better job. If IBM is right they will benefit and the worker will need to get their sorry ass in gear or work at a crappier job.
. . . either way, 13000 less ably-employed consumers is bad for ALL business.
I'm sure Intel does have *something* to offer Apple, they make a lot of chips. (some of them are even marginally acceptible).
But whenever a new intel box comes into the lab, I peel off the "Intel Inside" sticker, and stick it on my trash can, it's been covered with them since 1996 or so when that campaign started. It's a more appropriate place for them.
We should also restrict Divinity students from Rome. Hell - when are we going to INVADE THE VATICAN with a Pre-emptive to Protect America's Children from the Gathering Threat of Pedophile Priests? (and the dark, shadowy organization that covers-up their misdeeds and moves them from place to place so they can avoid punishment, and rape more children).
I can't wait to start hearing the stories of US interrogators flushing Bibles down the toilet. . .
Many corporate actions are just games designed to artificially increase stock price.
more true than most people know.
Like the massive manpower ramp-up (and concurrent book-cooking) in the late 1990's that companies did just to show stockholders that they were "growing".
The current "fad" is offshoring and outsourcing, to show stockholders that they're "cutting fat".
Fooling the investors in order to get cheap financing can temporarily make a money-losing enterprise look profitable.
None of this has/d a damn thing to do with running an actual functional business.
Because the SEC does nothing to stop this, it's common practice, and companies who don't do this are at a steep competitive disadvantage.
Is corporate Anarchy good for the American Economy, long-term? Does that spell good things for our future ability to finance our military defense?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple switching from PPC to x86 would be a huge boon for Linux.
For one thing - the Software Vendors (Adobe in particular) will not put up with another migration. The migration to OpenStep was a non-starter for them, and was the major reason for Apple to develop Carbon.
Simple solution:
Take away the power, no struggles.
(unfortunately, when you take that power away, you have to put it somewhere. And there's nobody else who's trustworthy enough. . . )
. . . ONLY if *I* get exclusive no-bid contracts to provide the equipment police will use to catch these evil drive-by Music Pirates!
It would be plain stupid to rewrite the whole OS using .NET - not only would that delay the shipping process, what added value would it mean to the customer?
.NET because the time up front will pay off later in maintainability and expandability, yet they're not willing to do it themselves (eat their own dogfood) then what does that tell you about the supposed benefits of .NET?
If MS is trying to tell it's customers to port everything over to
But their managers would deserve to be fired if they started wholesale rewriting of millions of loc of C++ just because there's a bunch of new toys to play with.
.NET up front, in order to reap the supposed benefits of maintainability later on.
Those managers SHOULD deserve to be fired if they didn't invest a small amount of time refactoring/porting to
Especially if the effort was already as far behind schedule as Longhorn is. I mean, what are these guys DOING? Spending their days playing lots of fooseball in the cafeteria?
no, but if you type "ls" with SFU installed IT WILL.
.NET does not solve the dll hell problem (they said it would.)
.NET development I have to:
.NET dabbler is HUGE.
Damn right. Just to PLAY WITH
1. Have a Windows 2000 or later machine, running fairly recent $$$ hardware.
2. Install SQL Server.
3. Install Visual Studio.NET.
4. Install ISS.
5. Install a bunch of other service packs and crap.
To play with Java development I need:
1. Any hardware running just about any OS you can think of.
2. Java SDK.
3. A text editor.
Barrier to entry for the
If I'm evaulating a new programming language/framework/environment, it better not take me two days and 5 CD installs (fraught with peril of messing up my machine's configuration (ie. dll-hell) forevermore amen).
Altivec enables stuff like Expose.
There is simply NOTHING LIKE it on Windows. Nothing even close.
So yeah. Altivec makes the Mac special in ways that MMX, SSE2, SSE3 just can't.
Do yourself a favor and lookup SIMD on Google. You might be surprised that Apple didn't invent it.
That's relevant how?
The fact is, Altivec is SIMD executed and deployed in a useful (if not novel) way. Such usefulness (and novelty) is absent in Windows.
But I'll give you one thing; I am a zealot.
The real question is, is it like Windows 2000, you know, made with "NT Technology"?
(New Technology Technology)
If you were to try to build a bomb from these instructions, it wouldn't work.
wow! Thanks for the tip! I was going to detonate mine in a plywood box, but now I see I need a heavy bomb casing. Maybe I'll try depleted uranium or something. . . got lots of that left over. Gee, that wouldn't react with the neutrons, would it?
I'm a proponent of legalized file-swapping/P2P, but even I don't equate the impact of over-zealous IP law with that of Prohibition.
The Mafia had running gun-battles with tommy guns with the police through the streets of Chicago.
-to say nothing of the devestation that modern drug prohibition has wrought on our society.
File-swapping is a tempest in a teapot compared to the impact of drug/alcohol prohibition. My biggest concern is that file-swapping prohibition might lead to erosion of free speech and fair use rights, and amounts to government pandering to what should be an illegal cartel (RIAA/MPAA/BSA).
The two situations compared amount to a false analogy.
How is running a corporation a privilege?
Roosevelt said so over a century ago:
It is no limitation upon property rights or freedom of contract to require that when men receive from government the privilege of doing business under corporate form, which frees them from individual responsibility, and enables them to call into their enterprises the capital of the public, they shall do so upon absolutely truthful representations as to the value of the property in which the capital is to be invested. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be regulated if they are found to exercise a license working to the public injury. It should be as much the aim of those who seek for social betterment to rid the business world of crimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimes of violence. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
People can freely do business all they want. But a Corporate Charter exempts one from certain rules and taxes, and more importantly, liabilities (ie. RESPONSIBILITIES) - and it is, indeed a PRIVILEGE granted (and FAR too infrequently, revoked) by the government.
Governments know NOTHING about running business and should keep their noses out.
Judging by the crappy corporate performance and layoffs (along with massive runup in exec compensation) over the past 5 years, I'd say private business knows NOTHING about running businesses either.
If an employer makes a bad decision letting a good guy go, his competitors will benefit.
. . . and the exec who oversaw the layoff will also benefit with a fat bonus. . .
If IBM is wrong then the company will suffer and the worker will find a better job. If IBM is right they will benefit and the worker will need to get their sorry ass in gear or work at a crappier job.
. . . either way, 13000 less ably-employed consumers is bad for ALL business.
You're a bean. He uses professional athletes as examples we should follow when pursuing jobs in this new reality.
We should do Steroids and rape young white girls in hotels on road-games?
"What the... Oh shit, I'm the copy!"
If you can tell the difference, then you're not a very good copy.
I'm sure Intel does have *something* to offer Apple, they make a lot of chips. (some of them are even marginally acceptible).
But whenever a new intel box comes into the lab, I peel off the "Intel Inside" sticker, and stick it on my trash can, it's been covered with them since 1996 or so when that campaign started. It's a more appropriate place for them.
that's farther than my cheap-ass WalMart mars rover's moving.
...and has gotten taken to court several times by companies seeking to protect their reputations. However, in every case, Consumer's Union has won...
Not to be a downer, but the times, they are a-changin'.
(I'm not very optimistic about the direction we're headed lately).
We should also restrict Divinity students from Rome. Hell - when are we going to INVADE THE VATICAN with a Pre-emptive to Protect America's Children from the Gathering Threat of Pedophile Priests? (and the dark, shadowy organization that covers-up their misdeeds and moves them from place to place so they can avoid punishment, and rape more children).
I can't wait to start hearing the stories of US interrogators flushing Bibles down the toilet. . .
You forgot some Natalie Portman Goatse petrified grits, or some shit like that.
Hell, it's Friday. I'll cut you some slack.
IBM doesn't want SCO, they want the whole Canopy group, and beyond.
And I hope they get those dirty rotten bastards, every single one of them. And I hope they put a serious hurt on those fuckers.
Many corporate actions are just games designed to artificially increase stock price.
more true than most people know.
Like the massive manpower ramp-up (and concurrent book-cooking) in the late 1990's that companies did just to show stockholders that they were "growing".
The current "fad" is offshoring and outsourcing, to show stockholders that they're "cutting fat".
Fooling the investors in order to get cheap financing can temporarily make a money-losing enterprise look profitable.
None of this has/d a damn thing to do with running an actual functional business.
Because the SEC does nothing to stop this, it's common practice, and companies who don't do this are at a steep competitive disadvantage.
Is corporate Anarchy good for the American Economy, long-term?
Does that spell good things for our future ability to finance our military defense?
Corporate America is slitting it's own throat.
I want Stanley Kubrick to come back from the grave and direct Episodes 7-9. Damn that would be fucking kick ass!
meh. I guarantee some corporate lawyers will get this site shut down pronto.