> I don't mean to discourage the notion that our leaders sell out cheaply, > they certainly do.
Look, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but lets be honest about the relationship between lobbists and congresscritters. At most they can influence a congresscritter on issues they are ambvalent on. If they are strongly invested in one side of an issue they usually won't budge. Where lobbists exercise their influnece is more effective, and when disclosed, perfectly honest. They influence WHO gets elected and who stays elected.
Think about it. Would the average socialist congresscritter start supporting the war in Iraq if Halliburton dumped the biggest shitload of money any reelection fund has ever seen on their desk? No. Would the average conservative switch to being for abortion if NARAL dumped a similar shitload on their desk? No.
What the money buys is a hearing, where you get to make your case, and on a case like Microsoft most congressmen aren't politically invested either way so it counts big. They get to wail about how unfair it all is, how it is going to cost American jobs and competitiveness, etc. And since the counter side isn't yet organized enough to put the other side of the argument to the congresscritter.... Plus they can dump large sums to those who ARE politically predisposed to support their opposition to anti-trust laws in general, etc. And equally as important, support the opponents of their more vocal foes.
Exactly my read of their attitude at the time. That they were doing something they didn't want to be doing, didn't believe in and that they would ax the project at the first opportunity. Which they did, and which is why I'll be even more convinced this is their attitude the next time they float another linux trial balloon.
Eventually though, the penguin is going to devour the market for Solaris, Their too little, too late attempt at open sourcing it not withstanding. But after alternating between "Linux is a toy, we hate it." and "We love Linux. (but don't you believe it, this is just the marketing dept at work)" nobody is going to believe them when the realities of the marketplace finally hit em and they actually DO want/need to switch.
> Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that > Apple would use AMD products...
Another Apple user who doesn't even understand what Apple is selling. They aren't likely to ever use AMD chips. The only way that would ever happen is if AMD became a bigger BRAND than Intel. That is what Apple is in the business of selling, a premium BRAND. They aren't even really in the technology business as such, any more than Nike is in the shoe business.
They are in the business of creating a premium brand identity and monitizing it. They would never buy AMD parts so long as they are seen as second fiddle to Intel. To sell a premium brand requires that all of the major parts have premium branding, Intel has that. When they pushed PPC they made sure their marketing made sure their customers got the message that they were getting something 'better than that consumer trash Intel puts in those crappy Dell boxes.' When that line of marketing failed they shifted gears and are now saying 'Intel is THE name brand in processors and it's Inside every Mac. And of course a Mac is still going to be so much better than those crappy Dell boxes.'
It isn't really about having better tech, we who read slashdot and actually care about tech make up a small amount of the market. It is about making the customer feel elite enough in owning a Mac they won't mind paying the premium to get it. Just like people who pay $200 for the Nike shoes and aren't even atheletes or anything, they just want to be seen wearing Nike.
No it ain't. People will stick their fingers in their ears and hum really loud if you try making that argument because subconsciously they KNOW the logical end of that line of thinking and refuse to go there. They LOVE Big Brother. Big Brother takes care of them when they know they are incapable of doing it for themself. Big Brother gives them things. Big Brother LOVES THEM.
They will NOT eat of the Apple of Knowledge again, know of Good and Evil and thus be forced to choose. They simply will NOT. Push em very hard and they will hurt you.
> I'm having trouble fitting this ruling into the usual scale of liberal > vs. conservative.
Then don't. Think socialist vs classical liberalism. Socialists believe the State can do whatever it damned well pleases, classical liberals believe in Rule of Law, checks and balances, enumerated powers and the importance of following the actual words found in the Constituition. Seen this way it makes perfect sense. The State wanted to do something and socialists put their big ol stamp of approval on it while the liberals cried foul but were outvoted.
> That was the exact problem with the Bill of Rights. Some people think > that they enumerate ALL the Rights protected by the Constitution, and > that's simply not the case.
The ninth and tenth Amendments should have been more than adaquate to the purpose of clarifying that. The problem was when the Congress, aided by the Supremes, simply ignored those two Amendments and our remote ancestors didn't kill the fuckers. Then our grandparents not only didn't kill the fuckers they added some more amendments to give the feral government even more power. Then our parents didn't kill the fuckers as they buried the last remnants of the old Republic. Now it is our fault for allowing the situation to continue, i.e. we are bitching on slashdot instead of shooting the traitors.
p.s. Some of our great great grandparents DID try to do something about a Federal government growing without bound. They are now hated and reviled by all 'right thinking people.' Think carefully about starting another revolt, most of the masses like that check that isn't justified by anything in the Constituition, don't know it is illegal and couldn't care less if they did.
> A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against > all reason and justice,
Since this sentence would apply with equal force to the bulk of what the feral government now does, i.e. takes from one private citizen in taxes and dispenses to different citizens based often on whim, it can't be acknowledged as a valid criticism of the state. Most of the current government is based on exactly this notion, of taking from A and giving it to B.
> but not Scalia. He sided with the majority regarding medical marijuana, > obviously a states' rights issue.
I kinda agree. But I just reread his concurring opinion and can at least see where he is reasoning from. It is a sorta back asswards conservative adherence to precedent. Like the disenting opinion a lot better.
> This Supreme Court ruling is great news if you're a giant corporation. > It's also the direct opposite of economic conservatism.
Which is exactly why the 'progressives' on the court voted in favor of allowing government to exceed it's constituitional bounds yet again and why a too small by one minority of conservatives voted against yet another unlawful expansion of government power. Go read the list of who voted for and against. O'Conner was notable for being on the right side for a change.
In reality the only reliable defenders of the Rule of Law and the Constituition are Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Even though several of the others were appointed by Republican Presidents they were either appointed during times when Democrats were in control of Congress or by non-conservative Republicans.
> Soooo what you're saying is that we don't have to do anything in Sudan? > Because that's the UN's problem? And the UN is bad, so we don't have to > do anything in Sudan?
No, I say we probably should be doing something even if we have to flout yet another attempt by the UN to prevent it. But the hard reality is after almost a decade of downsizing our military capability, Afganistan and Iraq are pretty much the limit of American power. Others, who by virtue of their refusal to assist in Iraq, DO have the military means at hand yet refuse to help should be taking heat for their tacit support for genocide.
> You say we have to fix the Middle East. Why not Saudia Arabia? It's > in the Middle East, and it is a corrupt kingdom.
Yes, Saudia Arabia is not only corrupt but aiding and secretly abetting our enemies. They are also a nominal ally. Welcome to real politics. But if the experiment in self rule in Iraq succeeds the House of Saud cannot stand, this is taken as a given by all observers of middle eastern politics. They will reform or die, their choice.
> North Korea also can't be ignored.
Again, I agree. But I'm uncertain as to what course of action to recommend. I suspect Mr. Bush & Miss Rice are equally uncertain as to just WHAT to do with Mr. Kim. All I can do is hope the White House's brain trust comes up with something. And while heaping ridicule and abuse on President Clinton for his ill advised deal is easy, having a better course of action for him, even in hindsight, is no easy matter.
> Oh, and Putin in Russia sure isn't an upstanding member of the > democratic club. Hell, China isn't either (look at what they are > doing to Tibet).
Also vexing problems with no sound bite answers. Both countries already possess the atomic hellfire N. Korea lusts after so "regime change" in the Iraq vein isn't an option.
> Taking out those countries is a bit too complicated, huh?
Exactly. Iraq was easy to deal with NOW, later it would be like N. Korea. Much better we stopped the bastard before he got the bomb.
> The WMDs was war story 1.0, and now war story 2.0 is democracy for > Iraq. The Iraq war is completely, and totally, an unjustified war > for some of America's interests.
Since EVERYBODY accepted the WMD story as a given, including France, I wouldn't call it a 'story'. And democracy in Iraq was THE reason for the invasion since a month or so after 9/11 for anyone reading outside CNN.com and moveon.org. Where were you that you didn't know that?
But that is beside the point. The war IS justified on the following grounds.
1. The President of the US determined that, for sound (even if one disagrees, the logic is reasonable) political and military reasons, we needed to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. It was his call to make and he made it. Our option as citizens was to deny him re-election. Since the war was issue #1 in the recent election I'd say we made our collective judgement.
2. The President went before Congress and obtained permission. That is two out of three branches of our government in agreement so it is kosher by the rules of our form of government. If you don't like that you are as free as anyone to campaign for amending whatever part of our Constituition you don't like.
Personally there are several sections I'd like to change. I'd especially like to repass Amendments 9 and 10 and add a clause to each stating that any elected or appointed official proposing legislation or issuing a ruling in violation of said reproposed amendments IS an affirmitive defense in an assassination trial regarding said congresscritter. I.e open season on 99% of Congress as long as you are willing to trust a jury to give you a pass after the fact. But I'm just a libertarian nutball that way on my more cranky days.
> Can you justify to me why we're *not* currently enmasse in Sudan > stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Iraq was a confluence of 'doing the right thing' in the abstract and acting in our own naked self interest. I.e. post 9/11 Bush (For the record, rightly in my view. Not that it matters all that much as it was his call to make.) decided that as a matter of US policy we needed to topple the despots ruling the Middle East and Saddam was the obvious place to begin.
What is happening in the Sudan is horrible and the UN Security Council's failure to act is, in and of itself, grounds for disolving that whole perverted instituition and beginning the hard work of creating a more perfect union among the civilized nations of the world. Of course the same stern condemnation could be equally applied to that body for several dozen moral lapses during it's brief existence. Enumerating said list is left as an exercise for the student, and different students might well select different horrors which have occured, often with nary a peep from the UN and never any forceful reaction.)
> Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not > because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person > to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single > answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle.
Then they should not be on the mailing lists. Development and even most user lists are for peer to peer support. If they need vendor to customer support there are plenty of people trying to make a living supporting Free Software and should patronize one of them.
We need to somewhat more clear on that distinction up front and then become totally ruthless when end users intrude on a mailing list.
> but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got > PO'd at some other piece of software
Yes, but I understand the nature of the game. I won't post to a mailing list until I have made a serious effort to solve the problem on my own. Then I'll do my best to post a question that includes sufficient information to help someone see where I went wrong. If I ever decide I don't want to do it that way I will again do the right thing and whip out the credit card.
> Rather than just dumping all that content on the much larger and more > chaotic PC world.
No chaotic PC world involved really. Hollywood won't deal without DRM and that means a locked down platform. Welcome to X-Box with an Apple logo on the front. Longhorn will probably be playing the same games come Xmas '06 and it is going to be hell on earth for the Free Software movement.:(
Look, OSX has it's own 'thang' going for it. Its is basically NextStep tarted up a bit. MS Office doesn't truly look and feel native, OOo damned sure isn't, and won't anytime soon. AppleWorks is too 'lite' and was a Classic App anyway. They need a native office suite and it looks like they are bout to fill in the last piece.
The interesting question is whether Steve decides that now is the time to end the unholy deal with Microsoft where MS provides Office for Mac so long as the Mac never tries to become mainstream. (Mainstream seems to be defined as >10% of PC sales for this purpose.) Being on iNtel means they could produce as many machines as they could sell. And if they played their cards right and cut HP or Dell in on the action they could probably move a metric assload of machines come next Xmas season.
Yes it would be the return of the clones, but if they really want to be a player they have to find a way to gain a significant installed base. They can't do the deal with Hollywood they so obviously lust after unless they can show an ability to get enough installed base to be worthy of signing a major content distribution deal with.
> That happening seems so far-fetched to me that its very mention > undermines the believability of anything else said in the article.
That was said for subtle reasons I suspect.
1. The statement adds on the record credibility to their impending attempt to claim it as a computer instead of a toy to avoid the EU's import tariffs.
2. It might be an attempt to throw down the gauntlet, not at Microsoft who could but won't port, but at Apple as they exit the PPC space. Apple COULD port to PS3 with minimal effort and I suspect Sony would even help defray the cost of Apple were interested. Imagine being able to sell it as an addon kit containing a preloaded HDD, Apple & Sony logoed keyboard and mouse.
From what I have been able to read up, the core of a Cell is a pretty much binary compatible PPC that would accept OS X binaries. Granted it is without altivec and not a ball of fire when running code that hasn't been hand tuned and/or written around the custom DSP portions, but it would all run. So for $300-$400 they could sell a Mac addon kit, at which point none could dispute it's claim to be a computer. And on one swoop they conquer the 'convergence living room PC' space.
Only problem with that plan is Apple already has designs on that very space and doesn't see why they need Sony's help.
> Nonesense. Never came close to filling up the 8gig on my Xbox, but > every game I've played has made use of the HD because they KNOW it > will be there.
As other posters have already corrected you re: confusing PS3 and XBox I'll just mention again that saving games isn't the point.
What I would like to add (and hope it is true) is that by omitting an internal HDD they force game devs to implement a robust game save mechanism instead of just defaulting to the internal drive and not offering anything else. Now they must consider some will use memory cards, some will buy a USB2 memory key, USB Zip drive, HDD, etc. and expect to be able to save games on any/all of them.
> I haven't been paying full attention to this subject
Apparently not.:)
> but where does it say that Apple is going to be anything close to a > beige box seller, as opposed to turning out shiny metallic powerbooks > that just happen to have the word "Intel" on a part inside, instead of > "Freescale"?
Apple themselves has said the Mactel boxes will have a BIOS and be capable of booting Windows. That says beige box with some gimick to try to keep OSX locked to their brand of beige boxes.
> If it's done outside Apple's licence, Dell would be easy prey for > Apple's lawyers.
Not really. Once you have the lawyers to make the law work you can enforce the software is SOLD, not LICENSED reality. The only protection OSX has is it's copyright. If a boxed copy of OSX goes into the carton box Apple has zero leg to stand on except to try bankrupting the offending vendor. If Dell were willing to piss Bill off that bad Steve would just have to hold his ankles and take it like a man. But of course Dell, HP, etc. won't do any such thing for fear of Bill. Whether a smaller outfit will try is the more interesting question.
> Apple will be *very* keen to protect their IP. Expect all sorts of > things to lock it down, not least of which will be custom ASICs with no > documentation.
See other posts in this thread as to why the full monty XBox style DRM isn't likely. It eliminates Mac as a development platform and it is all about developer buyin. As for custom ASICs, no way. It would be a ball and chain around their neck as they try to rev new versions and frankly Apple no longer has the resources for that sort of thing, they outsource everything except software development these days.
> All they need is to ensure that the OS requires the hardware at key > points in undocumented ways.
Can't even do that. Darwin is Open Source. Quartz is the only place they could play games of that sort and it would get patched fairly quick.
> What if the GUI won't load unless there is a custom chip on the > motherboard?
So? That is copy protection and we have been stripping that off of products in days since the 8bit days. They can't go XBox and full DRM if developers are to use the machine. Same for the other ideas in your post. If Quartz is running in memory it can be assaulted with the debugger and fixed. The only hitch would be if this chip actually performed some useful function, then it would have to be emulated in software and could impose a performance hit.
> Millions of people with existing PC hardware may plunk down $129 to > purchase OS X that would never have bought Apple hardware in the first > place.
Except Apple is planning to tell those prospective customers to FOAD. So the only Mac OS on beige box will either be pirated copies or some third party well heeled enough to sell bundles of OSX and a very user friendly install cum crack kit.
> People will buy OS X, install it on their existing PC, and when it comes > time to upgrade their hardware, may now consider buying Apple hardware > where they would never have done so before.
Why? They will have been a second class citizen for years, hated and reviled by Apple. But their Dell ran OSX just fine and a new Dell will be hundreds less. Face it, Apple is going to suck as a beige box seller unless they completely reinvent themselves from a low volume, high margin vendor to a low margin, high volume outfit. But Dell already owns that space and as Intel's oldest and most loyal customer will always get the best prices.
> It is all about mindshare. Before the move to Intel processors, Apple > was not in a position to win mindshare from the Windows crowd, > because it required an investment in hardware to switch.
I agree, expanding the userbase is this way is the only logical reason to dump the custom hardware for beige boxes, but Apple is deliberatly crippling this possibility by eliminating the typical 'Mac' types from doing it. Us 'tech' and 'early adopter' types will be doing it but are too smart to pay the premium for Mac hardware.
> Perhaps Steve Jobs is thinking further ahead than you give him credit > for. After all, he had them make OS X work on Intel for the past 5 > years. Do you really think he has not considered every path in the > future?
Not really, considering that NextStep was an Intel only product when it was tapped to become OSX it would have been dumb NOT to invest the minimal effort to keep it running on it's original platform as a hedge against future problems on PPC. And yes, I figure Steve will eventually figure out the hardware side is toast and let the other hardware vendors preload OSX. Will he do it in time? Big question.
Actually, I didn't think it ever actually went to court. Pheonix did such a bangup job documenting the clean room engineering IBM didn't press the issue. But only us oldtimers know those arcane details, for the midlevel geek who probably isn't old enough to have lived through those early days. Compaq was the first IBM clone.
Should have known I'd get called on that simplification though.:)
Apple with 'Intel Inside' is at best a wash. No more hype about being faster than a Wintel box, but they get close to parity in the real world. They might get a few more people buying Macs if they can dual boot them, but will suffer a financial hit when someone gets it running on commodity hardware.
And make no mistake, it WILL happen as the linked article says. If for no other reason than "because we can". Darwin already runs so if nothing else someone will just extract the higher level functions from the CD and drop them in, disabling the copy protection as required. Removing copy protection is well understood and will pose no real challenge. Macs aren't X-Boxes, developers who have not signed an NDA must be able to use one, including the debugger, so hardware lockdown isn't a real option.
And I'm not even sure this new practice of locking software to one's own brand of PC is even going to be legal. The console world gets away with it because a) the consoles sell at a loss so people cut em some slack and b) nobody has waged a real legal war over it yet. But on the PC, Compaq v IBM is settled law.
> First I have to know the difference between no-arch, 386, 586, 686, > etc... and download the right rpm.
Not at all. Whoever installs the machine adds the usual third party repos and the problem reduces to two options.
1. The program HAS been ported to your rpm based distro, either by the primary vendor or one of the 3rd party repo maintainers. (Dag and atrpms for RedHatish ones, PLF for Mandrake, etc.) You invoke the package manager whoever installed for you showed you how to use. On my machine (see my URL, guess which disto I run) I just pop open a console and type "up2date foo" to add the Foo package to my system. Others use yum, apt-get, aptitude, urpmi, etc. but they all work about the same.
2. It isn't packaged for your distro. Same situation of the app isn't in Fink for your Mac. You have to know how to build it yourself. Only difference is on an rpm based machine we are mainstream. Most sites will have an srpm or at least a.spec inside the tarball. Take the case of a source tarball, just do "rpmbuild -tb foo.src.tar.gz" and wait a bit for the binary package to appear. No Grandma won't be doing this, but she won't be doing it on a Mac either unless a Mac or Fink binary exists.
> Anyone trying to MARKET such hacks will certainly have to deal with > Apple's legal eagles.
I wouldn't be so sure. It will all come down to whether Apple can generate enough buzz to make people WANT to run Mac OS. If customers are there and Apple refuses to service them, someone else WILL. If they sell a kit that includes a legal, licensed copy of OSX and a CD to allow it to install and run, Apple will have a hard row to hoe in the courtroom.
> The big loser in all this will be Linux.
People keep saying this but HOW? Linux isn't growing because hordes of people wish they could run OSX on their Dell, but because they can't settle for Linux instead . The forces behind OSS/FS will eventually consume Apple as well as Microsoft & Sun or they won't because Microsoft wins the upcoming patent wars. Apple is all but irrelevent in the great philosophical battle being played out between proprietary software and OSS/FS, them being only a bit player on the proprietary side.
Or do you truly believe that because Apple has put an Intel chip in their machines they will suddenly leap from way back in the pack and become a player?
I could have easily afforded a Mac instead of the Athlon64 box sitting at home. My employer let me pick out my current laptop, a powerbook would have raised zero objections had I picked it over the Thinkpad I actually use. Apple is Microsoft with a prettier face and a little less suckage, nothing more. They will NEVER give me what I want: freedom. Serving Steve and drinking his kool-aid is no better than being assimilated by Bill Gatus of Borg.
> And if the question is "How many countries on THIS planet have the tech > to obliterate, enslave or cook most of the rest of the population > without suffering severe losses in the process", then the answer is > "None".
They aren't even twenty years in the 'ashbin of history' and you young pups have already forgotten the Evil Empire. They DID have the tech to enslave half the planet and pretty much got away with it because the West was engaged in a navel gazing exercise at the time, questioning its own moral authority and right to live. Thankfully some of us snapped out of the funk, tossed Jimmy "Age of Limits" Carter out on his plump ass and installed a more effective leader of the Western Alliance.
So yes, we DO have ample examples of amoral clueless societies with more tech than wisdom attempting to enslave a planet with a fair degree of success. So I'd assert it is the higher moral stature of the West that prevents it from doing likewise.
For example, the US could currently do it at little risk to itself. Lets do a thought experiment to test this theory.
The liberals are right, Dick Cheney IS a Sith Lord, who reveals himself and becomes Emperor Dick The First and Biggest. And for the sake of this theoretical he gets away with it, method left to the imagination and paranoia of the particular reader. Ok, we now have the biggest baddest military machine ever in the hands of someone with the Will to Power, but how to do it.....
Easy actually. Just DO it. Blow a bit of smoke about The Threat, perhaps North Korea. Set off a nuke somewhere newsworthy but not really critical, say Hollywood and claim it to be Them. Now we embark on a program to ENSURE WORLD SAFETY by making sure only 'responsible' countries have the bomb. Russia and China will go for that if they are in the club. Now you can crush North Korea and Iran, confiscate every other nuke and crush the countries who refuse with few objections. Doing so gets the US on a real war footing so manpower is no longer a problem. Some countries will try to form a bloc to resist, especially if we secretly encouraged such a plan, creating a perfect excuse to crush em. Really. the Emperor in SW knew all the right moves but in reality a plan as complex as his wouldn't be likely to succeed. In the modern world few countries would have the actuall testes to stare down the US military machine, exploit that fact and you could roll up half the countries who could be a threat before the rest could screw up the courage to resist. Keep the Russians and Chinese out of it for a few years and the rest could be ours. Then deal with them one at a time.
This scenario isn't likely to happen because WE aren't that sort of people... yet. We grow more debased each generation so you guys in the rest of the world better watch your backs.
> Colonialism is an example of this. Either you realise it and go away > in a reasonably orderly fashion (as the English did most of the > time), or you're in for a long, painful, ugly struggle in which you > have simply no chance to prevail (the French in Algeria, possibly > the ugliest war ever fought by a Western democracy).
By a democracy or republic yes, colonialism isn;t a longterm winner. The British saw themselves fulfilling the "White Man's Burden" to bring enlightenment to those living in darkness. When the people they thought they were helping yelled "Go Away!" loud enough they did. Read an interesting alternate history a few years ago though. About Gandhi[sp?] and India, but except for the British being in charge, the Third Reich was in charge. Very different outcome, things ended very badly for Mr. Gandhi.
> Oh, BTW, pray remind us what happened to American Indians ?
Never claimed we were the ultimate evolution in enlightened civilization, only the highest point in human history so far. Yes, at one point we did lots of things that wouldn't be considered very nice now. But also remember which civi
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't mean to discourage the notion that our leaders sell out cheaply,
> they certainly do.
Look, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but lets be honest about the relationship between lobbists and congresscritters. At most they can influence a congresscritter on issues they are ambvalent on. If they are strongly invested in one side of an issue they usually won't budge. Where lobbists exercise their influnece is more effective, and when disclosed, perfectly honest. They influence WHO gets elected and who stays elected.
Think about it. Would the average socialist congresscritter start supporting the war in Iraq if Halliburton dumped the biggest shitload of money any reelection fund has ever seen on their desk? No. Would the average conservative switch to being for abortion if NARAL dumped a similar shitload on their desk? No.
What the money buys is a hearing, where you get to make your case, and on a case like Microsoft most congressmen aren't politically invested either way so it counts big. They get to wail about how unfair it all is, how it is going to cost American jobs and competitiveness, etc. And since the counter side isn't yet organized enough to put the other side of the argument to the congresscritter.... Plus they can dump large sums to those who ARE politically predisposed to support their opposition to anti-trust laws in general, etc. And equally as important, support the opponents of their more vocal foes.
> But why would they use Linux to begin with?
Exactly my read of their attitude at the time. That they were doing something they didn't want to be doing, didn't believe in and that they would ax the project at the first opportunity. Which they did, and which is why I'll be even more convinced this is their attitude the next time they float another linux trial balloon.
Eventually though, the penguin is going to devour the market for Solaris, Their too little, too late attempt at open sourcing it not withstanding. But after alternating between "Linux is a toy, we hate it." and "We love Linux. (but don't you believe it, this is just the marketing dept at work)" nobody is going to believe them when the realities of the marketplace finally hit em and they actually DO want/need to switch.
> Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that
> Apple would use AMD products...
Another Apple user who doesn't even understand what Apple is selling. They aren't likely to ever use AMD chips. The only way that would ever happen is if AMD became a bigger BRAND than Intel. That is what Apple is in the business of selling, a premium BRAND. They aren't even really in the technology business as such, any more than Nike is in the shoe business.
They are in the business of creating a premium brand identity and monitizing it. They would never buy AMD parts so long as they are seen as second fiddle to Intel. To sell a premium brand requires that all of the major parts have premium branding, Intel has that. When they pushed PPC they made sure their marketing made sure their customers got the message that they were getting something 'better than that consumer trash Intel puts in those crappy Dell boxes.' When that line of marketing failed they shifted gears and are now saying 'Intel is THE name brand in processors and it's Inside every Mac. And of course a Mac is still going to be so much better than those crappy Dell boxes.'
It isn't really about having better tech, we who read slashdot and actually care about tech make up a small amount of the market. It is about making the customer feel elite enough in owning a Mac they won't mind paying the premium to get it. Just like people who pay $200 for the Nike shoes and aren't even atheletes or anything, they just want to be seen wearing Nike.
> No, it is still a valid criticism of the state.
No it ain't. People will stick their fingers in their ears and hum really loud if you try making that argument because subconsciously they KNOW the logical end of that line of thinking and refuse to go there. They LOVE Big Brother. Big Brother takes care of them when they know they are incapable of doing it for themself. Big Brother gives them things. Big Brother LOVES THEM.
They will NOT eat of the Apple of Knowledge again, know of Good and Evil and thus be forced to choose. They simply will NOT. Push em very hard and they will hurt you.
> I'm having trouble fitting this ruling into the usual scale of liberal
> vs. conservative.
Then don't. Think socialist vs classical liberalism. Socialists believe the State can do whatever it damned well pleases, classical liberals believe in Rule of Law, checks and balances, enumerated powers and the importance of following the actual words found in the Constituition. Seen this way it makes perfect sense. The State wanted to do something and socialists put their big ol stamp of approval on it while the liberals cried foul but were outvoted.
> That was the exact problem with the Bill of Rights. Some people think
> that they enumerate ALL the Rights protected by the Constitution, and
> that's simply not the case.
The ninth and tenth Amendments should have been more than adaquate to the purpose of clarifying that. The problem was when the Congress, aided by the Supremes, simply ignored those two Amendments and our remote ancestors didn't kill the fuckers. Then our grandparents not only didn't kill the fuckers they added some more amendments to give the feral government even more power. Then our parents didn't kill the fuckers as they buried the last remnants of the old Republic. Now it is our fault for allowing the situation to continue, i.e. we are bitching on slashdot instead of shooting the traitors.
p.s. Some of our great great grandparents DID try to do something about a Federal government growing without bound. They are now hated and reviled by all 'right thinking people.' Think carefully about starting another revolt, most of the masses like that check that isn't justified by anything in the Constituition, don't know it is illegal and couldn't care less if they did.
> A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against
> all reason and justice,
Since this sentence would apply with equal force to the bulk of what the feral government now does, i.e. takes from one private citizen in taxes and dispenses to different citizens based often on whim, it can't be acknowledged as a valid criticism of the state. Most of the current government is based on exactly this notion, of taking from A and giving it to B.
> but not Scalia. He sided with the majority regarding medical marijuana,
> obviously a states' rights issue.
I kinda agree. But I just reread his concurring opinion and can at least see where he is reasoning from. It is a sorta back asswards conservative adherence to precedent. Like the disenting opinion a lot better.
> This Supreme Court ruling is great news if you're a giant corporation.
> It's also the direct opposite of economic conservatism.
Which is exactly why the 'progressives' on the court voted in favor of allowing government to exceed it's constituitional bounds yet again and why a too small by one minority of conservatives voted against yet another unlawful expansion of government power. Go read the list of who voted for and against. O'Conner was notable for being on the right side for a change.
In reality the only reliable defenders of the Rule of Law and the Constituition are Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Even though several of the others were appointed by Republican Presidents they were either appointed during times when Democrats were in control of Congress or by non-conservative Republicans.
> Soooo what you're saying is that we don't have to do anything in Sudan?
> Because that's the UN's problem? And the UN is bad, so we don't have to
> do anything in Sudan?
No, I say we probably should be doing something even if we have to flout yet another attempt by the UN to prevent it. But the hard reality is after almost a decade of downsizing our military capability, Afganistan and Iraq are pretty much the limit of American power. Others, who by virtue of their refusal to assist in Iraq, DO have the military means at hand yet refuse to help should be taking heat for their tacit support for genocide.
> You say we have to fix the Middle East. Why not Saudia Arabia? It's
> in the Middle East, and it is a corrupt kingdom.
Yes, Saudia Arabia is not only corrupt but aiding and secretly abetting our enemies. They are also a nominal ally. Welcome to real politics. But if the experiment in self rule in Iraq succeeds the House of Saud cannot stand, this is taken as a given by all observers of middle eastern politics. They will reform or die, their choice.
> North Korea also can't be ignored.
Again, I agree. But I'm uncertain as to what course of action to recommend. I suspect Mr. Bush & Miss Rice are equally uncertain as to just WHAT to do with Mr. Kim. All I can do is hope the White House's brain trust comes up with something. And while heaping ridicule and abuse on President Clinton for his ill advised deal is easy, having a better course of action for him, even in hindsight, is no easy matter.
> Oh, and Putin in Russia sure isn't an upstanding member of the
> democratic club. Hell, China isn't either (look at what they are
> doing to Tibet).
Also vexing problems with no sound bite answers. Both countries already possess the atomic hellfire N. Korea lusts after so "regime change" in the Iraq vein isn't an option.
> Taking out those countries is a bit too complicated, huh?
Exactly. Iraq was easy to deal with NOW, later it would be like N. Korea. Much better we stopped the bastard before he got the bomb.
> The WMDs was war story 1.0, and now war story 2.0 is democracy for
> Iraq. The Iraq war is completely, and totally, an unjustified war
> for some of America's interests.
Since EVERYBODY accepted the WMD story as a given, including France, I wouldn't call it a 'story'. And democracy in Iraq was THE reason for the invasion since a month or so after 9/11 for anyone reading outside CNN.com and moveon.org. Where were you that you didn't know that?
But that is beside the point. The war IS justified on the following grounds.
1. The President of the US determined that, for sound (even if one disagrees, the logic is reasonable) political and military reasons, we needed to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. It was his call to make and he made it. Our option as citizens was to deny him re-election. Since the war was issue #1 in the recent election I'd say we made our collective judgement.
2. The President went before Congress and obtained permission. That is two out of three branches of our government in agreement so it is kosher by the rules of our form of government. If you don't like that you are as free as anyone to campaign for amending whatever part of our Constituition you don't like.
Personally there are several sections I'd like to change. I'd especially like to repass Amendments 9 and 10 and add a clause to each stating that any elected or appointed official proposing legislation or issuing a ruling in violation of said reproposed amendments IS an affirmitive defense in an assassination trial regarding said congresscritter. I.e open season on 99% of Congress as long as you are willing to trust a jury to give you a pass after the fact. But I'm just a libertarian nutball that way on my more cranky days.
> Can you justify to me why we're *not* currently enmasse in Sudan
> stopping what is clearly a genocide in progress?
Iraq was a confluence of 'doing the right thing' in the abstract and acting in our own naked self interest. I.e. post 9/11 Bush (For the record, rightly in my view. Not that it matters all that much as it was his call to make.) decided that as a matter of US policy we needed to topple the despots ruling the Middle East and Saddam was the obvious place to begin.
What is happening in the Sudan is horrible and the UN Security Council's failure to act is, in and of itself, grounds for disolving that whole perverted instituition and beginning the hard work of creating a more perfect union among the civilized nations of the world. Of course the same stern condemnation could be equally applied to that body for several dozen moral lapses during it's brief existence. Enumerating said list is left as an exercise for the student, and different students might well select different horrors which have occured, often with nary a peep from the UN and never any forceful reaction.)
> Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not
> because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person
> to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single
> answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle.
Then they should not be on the mailing lists. Development and even most user lists are for peer to peer support. If they need vendor to customer support there are plenty of people trying to make a living supporting Free Software and should patronize one of them.
We need to somewhat more clear on that distinction up front and then become totally ruthless when end users intrude on a mailing list.
> but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got
> PO'd at some other piece of software
Yes, but I understand the nature of the game. I won't post to a mailing list until I have made a serious effort to solve the problem on my own. Then I'll do my best to post a question that includes sufficient information to help someone see where I went wrong. If I ever decide I don't want to do it that way I will again do the right thing and whip out the credit card.
> Rather than just dumping all that content on the much larger and more
:(
> chaotic PC world.
No chaotic PC world involved really. Hollywood won't deal without DRM and that means a locked down platform. Welcome to X-Box with an Apple logo on the front. Longhorn will probably be playing the same games come Xmas '06 and it is going to be hell on earth for the Free Software movement.
Look, OSX has it's own 'thang' going for it. Its is basically NextStep tarted up a bit. MS Office doesn't truly look and feel native, OOo damned sure isn't, and won't anytime soon. AppleWorks is too 'lite' and was a Classic App anyway. They need a native office suite and it looks like they are bout to fill in the last piece.
The interesting question is whether Steve decides that now is the time to end the unholy deal with Microsoft where MS provides Office for Mac so long as the Mac never tries to become mainstream. (Mainstream seems to be defined as >10% of PC sales for this purpose.) Being on iNtel means they could produce as many machines as they could sell. And if they played their cards right and cut HP or Dell in on the action they could probably move a metric assload of machines come next Xmas season.
Yes it would be the return of the clones, but if they really want to be a player they have to find a way to gain a significant installed base. They can't do the deal with Hollywood they so obviously lust after unless they can show an ability to get enough installed base to be worthy of signing a major content distribution deal with.
> That happening seems so far-fetched to me that its very mention
> undermines the believability of anything else said in the article.
That was said for subtle reasons I suspect.
1. The statement adds on the record credibility to their impending attempt to claim it as a computer instead of a toy to avoid the EU's import tariffs.
2. It might be an attempt to throw down the gauntlet, not at Microsoft who could but won't port, but at Apple as they exit the PPC space. Apple COULD port to PS3 with minimal effort and I suspect Sony would even help defray the cost of Apple were interested. Imagine being able to sell it as an addon kit containing a preloaded HDD, Apple & Sony logoed keyboard and mouse.
From what I have been able to read up, the core of a Cell is a pretty much binary compatible PPC that would accept OS X binaries. Granted it is without altivec and not a ball of fire when running code that hasn't been hand tuned and/or written around the custom DSP portions, but it would all run. So for $300-$400 they could sell a Mac addon kit, at which point none could dispute it's claim to be a computer. And on one swoop they conquer the 'convergence living room PC' space.
Only problem with that plan is Apple already has designs on that very space and doesn't see why they need Sony's help.
> Nonesense. Never came close to filling up the 8gig on my Xbox, but
> every game I've played has made use of the HD because they KNOW it
> will be there.
As other posters have already corrected you re: confusing PS3 and XBox I'll just mention again that saving games isn't the point.
What I would like to add (and hope it is true) is that by omitting an internal HDD they force game devs to implement a robust game save mechanism instead of just defaulting to the internal drive and not offering anything else. Now they must consider some will use memory cards, some will buy a USB2 memory key, USB Zip drive, HDD, etc. and expect to be able to save games on any/all of them.
> I haven't been paying full attention to this subject
:)
Apparently not.
> but where does it say that Apple is going to be anything close to a
> beige box seller, as opposed to turning out shiny metallic powerbooks
> that just happen to have the word "Intel" on a part inside, instead of
> "Freescale"?
Apple themselves has said the Mactel boxes will have a BIOS and be capable of booting Windows. That says beige box with some gimick to try to keep OSX locked to their brand of beige boxes.
> If it's done outside Apple's licence, Dell would be easy prey for
> Apple's lawyers.
Not really. Once you have the lawyers to make the law work you can enforce the software is SOLD, not LICENSED reality. The only protection OSX has is it's copyright. If a boxed copy of OSX goes into the carton box Apple has zero leg to stand on except to try bankrupting the offending vendor. If Dell were willing to piss Bill off that bad Steve would just have to hold his ankles and take it like a man. But of course Dell, HP, etc. won't do any such thing for fear of Bill. Whether a smaller outfit will try is the more interesting question.
> Apple will be *very* keen to protect their IP. Expect all sorts of
> things to lock it down, not least of which will be custom ASICs with no
> documentation.
See other posts in this thread as to why the full monty XBox style DRM isn't likely. It eliminates Mac as a development platform and it is all about developer buyin. As for custom ASICs, no way. It would be a ball and chain around their neck as they try to rev new versions and frankly Apple no longer has the resources for that sort of thing, they outsource everything except software development these days.
> All they need is to ensure that the OS requires the hardware at key
> points in undocumented ways.
Can't even do that. Darwin is Open Source. Quartz is the only place they could play games of that sort and it would get patched fairly quick.
> What if the GUI won't load unless there is a custom chip on the
> motherboard?
So? That is copy protection and we have been stripping that off of products in days since the 8bit days. They can't go XBox and full DRM if developers are to use the machine. Same for the other ideas in your post. If Quartz is running in memory it can be assaulted with the debugger and fixed. The only hitch would be if this chip actually performed some useful function, then it would have to be emulated in software and could impose a performance hit.
> You are ignoring many other possible outcomes:
No I'm not.
> Millions of people with existing PC hardware may plunk down $129 to
> purchase OS X that would never have bought Apple hardware in the first
> place.
Except Apple is planning to tell those prospective customers to FOAD. So the only Mac OS on beige box will either be pirated copies or some third party well heeled enough to sell bundles of OSX and a very user friendly install cum crack kit.
> People will buy OS X, install it on their existing PC, and when it comes
> time to upgrade their hardware, may now consider buying Apple hardware
> where they would never have done so before.
Why? They will have been a second class citizen for years, hated and reviled by Apple. But their Dell ran OSX just fine and a new Dell will be hundreds less. Face it, Apple is going to suck as a beige box seller unless they completely reinvent themselves from a low volume, high margin vendor to a low margin, high volume outfit. But Dell already owns that space and as Intel's oldest and most loyal customer will always get the best prices.
> It is all about mindshare. Before the move to Intel processors, Apple
> was not in a position to win mindshare from the Windows crowd,
> because it required an investment in hardware to switch.
I agree, expanding the userbase is this way is the only logical reason to dump the custom hardware for beige boxes, but Apple is deliberatly crippling this possibility by eliminating the typical 'Mac' types from doing it. Us 'tech' and 'early adopter' types will be doing it but are too smart to pay the premium for Mac hardware.
> Perhaps Steve Jobs is thinking further ahead than you give him credit
> for. After all, he had them make OS X work on Intel for the past 5
> years. Do you really think he has not considered every path in the
> future?
Not really, considering that NextStep was an Intel only product when it was tapped to become OSX it would have been dumb NOT to invest the minimal effort to keep it running on it's original platform as a hedge against future problems on PPC. And yes, I figure Steve will eventually figure out the hardware side is toast and let the other hardware vendors preload OSX. Will he do it in time? Big question.
Actually, I didn't think it ever actually went to court. Pheonix did such a bangup job documenting the clean room engineering IBM didn't press the issue. But only us oldtimers know those arcane details, for the midlevel geek who probably isn't old enough to have lived through those early days. Compaq was the first IBM clone.
:)
Should have known I'd get called on that simplification though.
Apple with 'Intel Inside' is at best a wash. No more hype about being
faster than a Wintel box, but they get close to parity in the real world.
They might get a few more people buying Macs if they can dual boot them,
but will suffer a financial hit when someone gets it running on commodity hardware.
And make no mistake, it WILL happen as the linked article says. If
for no other reason than "because we can". Darwin already runs so if
nothing else someone will just extract the higher level functions from
the CD and drop them in, disabling the copy protection as required.
Removing copy protection is well understood and will pose no real
challenge. Macs aren't X-Boxes, developers who have not signed an NDA
must be able to use one, including the debugger, so hardware lockdown
isn't a real option.
And I'm not even sure this new practice of locking software to one's
own brand of PC is even going to be legal. The console world gets away
with it because a) the consoles sell at a loss so people cut em some
slack and b) nobody has waged a real legal war over it yet. But on the
PC, Compaq v IBM is settled law.
> First I have to know the difference between no-arch, 386, 586, 686,
.spec inside the tarball. Take the case of a source tarball, just do "rpmbuild -tb foo.src.tar.gz" and wait a bit for the binary package to appear. No Grandma won't be doing this, but she won't be doing it on a Mac either unless a Mac or Fink binary exists.
> etc... and download the right rpm.
Not at all. Whoever installs the machine adds the usual third party repos and the problem reduces to two options.
1. The program HAS been ported to your rpm based distro, either by the primary vendor or one of the 3rd party repo maintainers. (Dag and atrpms for RedHatish ones, PLF for Mandrake, etc.) You invoke the package manager whoever installed for you showed you how to use. On my machine (see my URL, guess which disto I run) I just pop open a console and type "up2date foo" to add the Foo package to my system. Others use yum, apt-get, aptitude, urpmi, etc. but they all work about the same.
2. It isn't packaged for your distro. Same situation of the app isn't in Fink for your Mac. You have to know how to build it yourself. Only difference is on an rpm based machine we are mainstream. Most sites will have an srpm or at least a
> Anyone trying to MARKET such hacks will certainly have to deal with
> Apple's legal eagles.
I wouldn't be so sure. It will all come down to whether Apple can generate enough buzz to make people WANT to run Mac OS. If customers are there and Apple refuses to service them, someone else WILL. If they sell a kit that includes a legal, licensed copy of OSX and a CD to allow it to install and run, Apple will have a hard row to hoe in the courtroom.
> The big loser in all this will be Linux.
People keep saying this but HOW? Linux isn't growing because hordes of people wish they could run OSX on their Dell, but because they can't settle for Linux instead . The forces behind OSS/FS will eventually consume Apple as well as Microsoft & Sun or they won't because Microsoft wins the upcoming patent wars. Apple is all but irrelevent in the great philosophical battle being played out between proprietary software and OSS/FS, them being only a bit player on the proprietary side.
Or do you truly believe that because Apple has put an Intel chip in their machines they will suddenly leap from way back in the pack and become a player?
I could have easily afforded a Mac instead of the Athlon64 box sitting at home. My employer let me pick out my current laptop, a powerbook would have raised zero objections had I picked it over the Thinkpad I actually use. Apple is Microsoft with a prettier face and a little less suckage, nothing more. They will NEVER give me what I want: freedom. Serving Steve and drinking his kool-aid is no better than being assimilated by Bill Gatus of Borg.
> And if the question is "How many countries on THIS planet have the tech
> to obliterate, enslave or cook most of the rest of the population
> without suffering severe losses in the process", then the answer is
> "None".
They aren't even twenty years in the 'ashbin of history' and you young pups have already forgotten the Evil Empire. They DID have the tech to enslave half the planet and pretty much got away with it because the West was engaged in a navel gazing exercise at the time, questioning its own moral authority and right to live. Thankfully some of us snapped out of the funk, tossed Jimmy "Age of Limits" Carter out on his plump ass and installed a more effective leader of the Western Alliance.
So yes, we DO have ample examples of amoral clueless societies with more tech than wisdom attempting to enslave a planet with a fair degree of success. So I'd assert it is the higher moral stature of the West that prevents it from doing likewise.
For example, the US could currently do it at little risk to itself. Lets do a thought experiment to test this theory.
The liberals are right, Dick Cheney IS a Sith Lord, who reveals himself and becomes Emperor Dick The First and Biggest. And for the sake of this theoretical he gets away with it, method left to the imagination and paranoia of the particular reader. Ok, we now have the biggest baddest military machine ever in the hands of someone with the Will to Power, but how to do it.....
Easy actually. Just DO it. Blow a bit of smoke about The Threat, perhaps North Korea. Set off a nuke somewhere newsworthy but not really critical, say Hollywood and claim it to be Them. Now we embark on a program to ENSURE WORLD SAFETY by making sure only 'responsible' countries have the bomb. Russia and China will go for that if they are in the club. Now you can crush North Korea and Iran, confiscate every other nuke and crush the countries who refuse with few objections. Doing so gets the US on a real war footing so manpower is no longer a problem. Some countries will try to form a bloc to resist, especially if we secretly encouraged such a plan, creating a perfect excuse to crush em. Really. the Emperor in SW knew all the right moves but in reality a plan as complex as his wouldn't be likely to succeed. In the modern world few countries would have the actuall testes to stare down the US military machine, exploit that fact and you could roll up half the countries who could be a threat before the rest could screw up the courage to resist. Keep the Russians and Chinese out of it for a few years and the rest could be ours. Then deal with them one at a time.
This scenario isn't likely to happen because WE aren't that sort of people... yet. We grow more debased each generation so you guys in the rest of the world better watch your backs.
> Colonialism is an example of this. Either you realise it and go away
> in a reasonably orderly fashion (as the English did most of the
> time), or you're in for a long, painful, ugly struggle in which you
> have simply no chance to prevail (the French in Algeria, possibly
> the ugliest war ever fought by a Western democracy).
By a democracy or republic yes, colonialism isn;t a longterm winner. The British saw themselves fulfilling the "White Man's Burden" to bring enlightenment to those living in darkness. When the people they thought they were helping yelled "Go Away!" loud enough they did. Read an interesting alternate history a few years ago though. About Gandhi[sp?] and India, but except for the British being in charge, the Third Reich was in charge. Very different outcome, things ended very badly for Mr. Gandhi.
> Oh, BTW, pray remind us what happened to American Indians ?
Never claimed we were the ultimate evolution in enlightened civilization, only the highest point in human history so far. Yes, at one point we did lots of things that wouldn't be considered very nice now. But also remember which civi