Well since moderating is a good way to lose karma (possibly because of the metamoderation system's takeover by the same trolls you describe), perhaps no one moderates anymore except these shill accounts.
I will say though that for a long time I did not create an account myself. I only did when/. decided to change the default view for AC's to "flat" (WHY?! WHY?!). And I lurked and lurked for a long time. It's no good reading/. as a real AC anymore unless you are a "F1r57 P0st!" with hot grits down your pants and a thing for natalie portman (who is boring IMHO).
So there are probably lots of lurkers who never post but must create accounts because the default view sucks now (and has for some time) and of course lots of shills for the "Tr0ll W4rz."
After all, posting unpopular viewpoints is also a great way to lose karma. Watch me get moderated into oblivion once again for speaking the truth on the matter.
Well, no wonder I am not an english professor. It seemed improper to me. and I thought "I haven't gotten laid" would be improper. But old Webster has this:
c : to make progress
So, in the sense of making progress, "haven't gotten laid" is proper!
It should be possible to use a diff and find the code that needs to be patched into any other kernel versions to allow the use of your card. Have a nice day!
Packard Bell is no longer n the PC business. Try again buddy.
I wonder sometimes if a significant chunk of the/. trolls don't really work at McDonald's and run Win98.. "I work at Cisco!" "I work at Microsoft! Listen to me!!!"
Both the IBM and the Dell laptops have full hardware support. Dell in particular has been fairly good about never shipping a box with and OS that does not support all the hardware. These boxen are certified for their distros.
Quit spreading FUD. Research before you open your mouth, It is better to remain silent and seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
Right but CPHack does, as it shows the list from Mattel's database and revealed some of the political chicanery they were involved in (blocking certain sites based on political rather than any sort of offensive content).
One other thing that needs to be considered, especially in the light of laws being passed to ensure that public schools, libraries, government offices, and possibly state universities be forced to install this software on all of their computers is that not only do these wares block political content while being an utter failure in blocking pronography, but it has been proven that they would for instance block a tripod site with the slightest email from a hotmail account regarding content it was carrying that happened to be on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's site as well, but the almighty Dr. Laura, an extreme advocate of this software, the legislation, and a prime spreader of FUD regarding the "evils" of safe sex advocacy, sex education, and homosexuality will NEVER be blocked for her hate speech.
Other sites with a similar bent, also advocates of the software, would be among those that carry content that should by all rights be blocked under the guidelines set forth by the software, but are not because they are rich, powerful, and again, advocates of the legislation that makes the software mandatory. Between Focus on the Family, Dr Laura, Jerry Falwell, etc. They are all cashing in on America's fears and destroying their political enemies simultaneously, and they are getting away with it because of the rampant ignorance in America which also happens to supply them with audiences.
At any rate, keeping our kids from being able to find information on Beaver U, and preventing their lucrative t-shirt sales:) is the least of our fears, and only the beginning of the problems with this software.
Incidentally, if yo really want to stop porn from coming on your desktop, you should install a filter that filters PORN (wow what a concept!). Maximum PC reviewed an excellent piece of software that reviews images for skin content and blocks the image based on a ratio. They tested it out, and it was fairly effective at stopping your kids from seeing anything they would not see normally on TV or in your lingerie catalogues anyway (ah Victoria). The software is called Eyeguard, and the shootout occurred in the back of the March 2000 issue.
Granted this does not stop pornographic stories, but if you are worried about that, well, Brother Falwell, I could direct you to turn in your Bible to some choice juicy passages. (I won't subject/. to that!)
Why is it that this is not the kind of software that is being foisted on our schools and such? Well it is very elementary in fact. The censorware that is being used has the ability to block whatever site for whatever reason. As usual, the advocates are crying "Pornography!" and "Save the Children!" but practicing the same kind of censorship they decry in other countries. It is outrageous, and only very resourceful free thinking individuals will be able to stop them.
Well, of course I would take Samba on OpenBSD over native NT any day, as long as Win2k DC support was not an issue. I was thinking more along the lines of webserver being secured with as little as possible running, and the file and print server being a seperate box.
I would say that there are worse things to be running that Samba w/r/t exploitable vulnerabilities, but I just don't like the idea of broadcasting protocols living on the Net. If you have a real router (and it is set up properly), that's not a problem. But for instance with cable modems and some DSL solutions, the "l337 5kript |Of course the next tier would see your box as they walk the IP addresses, but that is another story.
Your point with ftp/tftp is of course valid. That, telnet, most services starting with r, anything that uses clear text is pure satan. SSLftp allows the use of DES, RSA, and uses MD5, and is mentioned in "Maximum Linux security" Which got a good review here even though no book can really teach you security.
As for nethack, it is mostly harmless, I would imagine. But be careful of shopkeepers when you get blinded!
It doesn't phase most consumers that the record company slurps the lion's share of the profits of any artist's work. Even Lars pointed that out, artists do not make money from CD's, They make money from tours.
To be honest, just about everyone I know uses Napster to download MP3's. And they all buy CD's, have been all their lives. They will continue to do so because there is quality in a good CD. The sound is better, it is not cut off, and you get pretty posters and liner notes and stuff.
The RIAA makes out like Napster is costing artists money. But in reality if CD sales went down it would not be the artists who would suffer so much as the record labels. They are the only one's making money off CD sales.
Sounds cool, but doesn't adding Samba add vulnerabilities? Apache is necessary, of course, but Nethack and Samba? Why would you use your web server for file and printer sharing? Would you like to see printouts from 1337 s|To me, it seems using an OpenBSD box like that defeats the purpose of OpenBSD.
To a degree. However, one can (and linux developers do) state requirements based on library versions and such. Lots of software says "This software works with version 2.x.x of the linux kernal and glibc x..." The nice thing about linux is that the versioning has so far been sane. Redhat's rpm (and I understand Debian's apt) packages have helped continue this sanity.
On a windows box, without strict versioning, the same problems you describe happen every day, despite it being one OS, etc. This is because the problem lies with library versions, not distributions.
Napster does not share all MP3's on your HD. It shares the mp3's in the directory you are downloading to. You are perfectly free to snatch these out, or not share them. If you cannot use software do not blame the software for not having features you do not know how to use.
There is nothing wrong with having what license you want. The problem comes when you violate the GPL. KDE violates the GPL and as such, works against the efforts of the people who have tried to create GPL'd software. How would you like someone else subverting your work?
If you create a software package, use the license you wish. If you want to call it Open Source, or Free Software, there are some basic guidelines, but this is only to create standards that reduce confusion in the market.
Even ESR agrees, IIRC that there are situations that call for other licenses. However it would all be better, IMHO if we just used GPL. Nevertheless, using a different license will not cause you to be boycotted. Do you see GNU calling for an end to Perl, Mozilla, and any number of other non-GPL'ed yet quite free projects?
Erm.. there are standards. Both RedHat and Debian are Linux. Linux is a kernel, and every Linux distro by definition uses a form of that kernel. Then there are things like POSIX compliance, X11, TCP/IP, all standards which are followed in the crafting of a Linux Distro.
There are not programs AFAIK that will only run on one distro and not another, though there are programs that say "For Red Hat" simply because they are distributed in RPM (which works on Solaris, Debian, all sorts of systems) and because the company or group that made it tested on Red Hat.
By the same token, Windows is supposed to run on Dell, Compaq, etc, but not specifically ABC Computers' boxes. Yet it does, because of standards in PC hardware.
Yes, if you want to allow binary-only distributions of someone else's work, such as a certain closed-source operating system I could mention with an excellent window manager and browser, that uses code from free software projects in its main networking components without even mentioning the fact, go ahead and use another license, and help Microsoft (oops! spilled the beans! heh) some more, and give them all your work while they bash open source with their product and ensure you cannot stay in business.
"But..but.. it's not FA-IR!"
"Well Johnny I am sorry, maybe if you would use a Free Software License next time this will not happen."
I think what he is talking about is using a different product altogether because he cannot modify the original product. If you have closed-source software, and it does not support a feature you need, Tough Noogies. Go buy/download something else.
Free software gives him the ability to add the feature to the original software, which is far superior and usually the only way to attain complex arbitrary feature sets.
IIRC, the developers who were working on Harmony were slurped up by the Gnome project, which RedHat funded heavily. I do not remember if it was RedHat starting the project or just funding it, but basically the developers that would have made Harmony started work on Gnome.
That does bring up a good point, in that perhaps one could take GTK and try to make KDE work with it, but of course KDE apps are written for Qt anyway, so...
As I read through the replies to this article, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at some of what I am reading here. Is this really Slashdot? Yes, unfortunately. People can post rather long replies to stories without understanding the first paragraph, and are thought of as insightful. Very well, let me clue you in on some insight you missed.
The main problem with the Qt license in KDE is that it stifles development of KDE. Because of the nature of the Qt license, changes must be supplied as a patch and recompile. The only legally distributed binaries are from the KDE maintainers themselves.
The license makes it hard to modify the Qt code itself, and KDE generally. The license makes the distibution of KDE as we now see it illegal. Because companies like Red Hat, Corel, etc. are technically illegally distibuting KDE and such, licenses in general, and in particular the GPL, are being undermined by general practice. If you do not defend your license, it becomes unenforcable, and everything the FSF and the Linux community has worked for is lost.
The article mentions several examples of this already happening in the sense of companies violating the GPL and getting away with it because of the situation with KDE (eg NVidia, Corel...).
The further problem is that Linux needed a desktop badly and KDE was "it" for awhile. The Troll tech guys, etc kept promising to "fix" the license while gaining marketshare. As long as they kept promising that, and opensource advocates kept believing it in good faith, KDE continued to be distributed unchallenged.
As more and more people became concerned with the situation, the Gnome project began in an effort to have a desktop that was truly free and could be modified under GPL. But it was too late, because KDE was already ubiquitous as planned.
Even now, as Gnome is comparable in performance and features to KDE, there are those who complain about its lack of stability versus KDE (personally I have not seen it, but then there are those who have said they never saw their windows box crash;) ), which is the older project, and which is eroding the GPL by its very existence. Nevermind the illegality of this "default" desktop.
I think that the debian people are right to exclude KDE from their distribution, and by god we ought to support them in this. I like KDE, and it was the first Linux desktop i used. BUt as I became aware of the implications, I stopped using it, and switched to Gnome. If Gnome does not suit my needs, I have the benefit of source and can modify it at will without violating archaic licenses. I can include the whole modified version TOGETHER in an rpm if I wanted. And the most important thing is that I am not working towards a situation in which the Microsoft OS group can make a closed-source linux distro, distibute it for free, and take over the linux desktop like they did with Windows.
I understand that most people are pragmatic in that they don't want to use something just for its political value, as they do want to get work done and would like to evaluate a technical product on its technical merits. What teh article points out is that politics aside, the license of KDE makes it harder to modify, add features, fix bugs, etc, which is, I think a point that is all-too-often missed in the debate between pragmatic users and "rabid open source advocates."
For one thing, Office itself is closed source. That goes without saying. But the other thing to consider is that while the kernel and BSD layer of MacOSX and MacOSX server is open source, the GUI is not. Office is a GUI app and will be made for the Mac OS X gui. It would be just as hard to port to X on BSD and co. as from Windows to X.
Incidentally, I believe that the original Office runs in the "Blue Box" (Mac OS VM) on Mac OS X server. OS X client has "aqua" I am not sure if this is the same thing, but basically the idea was for Mac Apps to either run unmodified or be easily ported to the new system.
And I would buy this why? A SDRAM-based system with the same number of slots could support 2-4GB RAM. (2 now, 4 when 1GB SDRAM is more available) The RAMBUS system would be limited currently to at most 1GB, and even that might not be possible, "Since the largest RIMM readily available on the market today is 128MB."
Rambus is having trouble making large parts, and besides, did you see the cost? $550 for 128MB? No thank you, I will buy 512MB SDRAM, or a couple registered ECC 256MB, thank you very much.
RDRAMS are also notoriously hot, hotter than a Voodoo 3.. After running for a few minutes they are dangerous to handle, and say so.. that is trouble in the case. And you have to fill every slot with something, RIMMS or CRIMMS, your choice, both expensive.
I buy a computer for performance. I have no problem buying high RPM drives with fast connections because they have a good price to performance ratio. I use an Athlon processor for the same reason. Not cheapness, value because I have spent a good chunk on my system and will continue to do so.
RDRAM is astronomically higher in price, and gives negligible if any performance improvements even when paired with a system with the same amount of SDRAM, and the same system can be upgraded to a higher memory level than RDRAM may ever achieve. certainly for the same money, you could have much more SDRAM, and therefore more performance in manycases.
PowerMacs have PCI. With the right drivers, they can even use the same devices as PC's in some cases.
PowerMacs can run other OS's, in fact they were designed specifically in such a way to make it easier, with Open Firmware. However Apple has screwed up alternative OS support on the PowerMac by not releasing specs to most things, and forcing them to rely on revere-engineering (whereas before all one had to do was go to the devel webpage or get a copy of Inside Macintosh to get more data than one could possibly want about the hardware.
At this point, all Apple is interested in releaing is information for programming under the MacOS. A lot of this is Jobs' doing, he always did seem to be of the persuasion that tight controls were the only way to attain true "beauty" in a design.
In a way he is right, at least as far as the MacOS is concerned. Look at what happens to Windows when you subvert the API and write directly to hardware, and use all manner of assorted undocumented hacks...
Slashdot Mirror
Well since moderating is a good way to lose karma (possibly because of the metamoderation system's takeover by the same trolls you describe), perhaps no one moderates anymore except these shill accounts.
I will say though that for a long time I did not create an account myself. I only did when /. decided to change the default view for AC's to "flat" (WHY?! WHY?!). And I lurked and lurked for a long time. It's no good reading /. as a real AC anymore unless you are a "F1r57 P0st!" with hot grits down your pants and a thing for natalie portman (who is boring IMHO).
So there are probably lots of lurkers who never post but must create accounts because the default view sucks now (and has for some time) and of course lots of shills for the "Tr0ll W4rz."
After all, posting unpopular viewpoints is also a great way to lose karma. Watch me get moderated into oblivion once again for speaking the truth on the matter.
Hmm /. cut off part of my post. That has been happening a lot lately. I meant to have the example:
c : to make progress (hasn't gotten far with the essay)
Well, no wonder I am not an english professor. It seemed improper to me. and I thought "I haven't gotten laid" would be improper. But old Webster has this:
c : to make progress
So, in the sense of making progress, "haven't gotten laid" is proper!
I thought that there was source here for the drivers. I know that the drivers are there anyway. If you cannot get driver source, you can certainly get kernel source there for the Dell kernels at different versions.
It should be possible to use a diff and find the code that needs to be patched into any other kernel versions to allow the use of your card. Have a nice day!
Packard Bell is no longer n the PC business. Try again buddy.
I wonder sometimes if a significant chunk of the /. trolls don't really work at McDonald's and run Win98.. "I work at Cisco!" "I work at Microsoft! Listen to me!!!"
Whatever.
Both the IBM and the Dell laptops have full hardware support. Dell in particular has been fairly good about never shipping a box with and OS that does not support all the hardware. These boxen are certified for their distros.
Quit spreading FUD. Research before you open your mouth, It is better to remain silent and seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
Right but CPHack does, as it shows the list from Mattel's database and revealed some of the political chicanery they were involved in (blocking certain sites based on political rather than any sort of offensive content).
One other thing that needs to be considered, especially in the light of laws being passed to ensure that public schools, libraries, government offices, and possibly state universities be forced to install this software on all of their computers is that not only do these wares block political content while being an utter failure in blocking pronography, but it has been proven that they would for instance block a tripod site with the slightest email from a hotmail account regarding content it was carrying that happened to be on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's site as well, but the almighty Dr. Laura, an extreme advocate of this software, the legislation, and a prime spreader of FUD regarding the "evils" of safe sex advocacy, sex education, and homosexuality will NEVER be blocked for her hate speech.
Other sites with a similar bent, also advocates of the software, would be among those that carry content that should by all rights be blocked under the guidelines set forth by the software, but are not because they are rich, powerful, and again, advocates of the legislation that makes the software mandatory. Between Focus on the Family, Dr Laura, Jerry Falwell, etc. They are all cashing in on America's fears and destroying their political enemies simultaneously, and they are getting away with it because of the rampant ignorance in America which also happens to supply them with audiences.
At any rate, keeping our kids from being able to find information on Beaver U, and preventing their lucrative t-shirt sales :) is the least of our fears, and only the beginning of the problems with this software.
Incidentally, if yo really want to stop porn from coming on your desktop, you should install a filter that filters PORN (wow what a concept!). Maximum PC reviewed an excellent piece of software that reviews images for skin content and blocks the image based on a ratio. They tested it out, and it was fairly effective at stopping your kids from seeing anything they would not see normally on TV or in your lingerie catalogues anyway (ah Victoria). The software is called Eyeguard, and the shootout occurred in the back of the March 2000 issue.
Granted this does not stop pornographic stories, but if you are worried about that, well, Brother Falwell, I could direct you to turn in your Bible to some choice juicy passages. (I won't subject /. to that!)
Why is it that this is not the kind of software that is being foisted on our schools and such? Well it is very elementary in fact. The censorware that is being used has the ability to block whatever site for whatever reason. As usual, the advocates are crying "Pornography!" and "Save the Children!" but practicing the same kind of censorship they decry in other countries. It is outrageous, and only very resourceful free thinking individuals will be able to stop them.
Gotten is improper here. Received in the case of money from the govt, been in the case of getting laid.
AFAIK gotten is not a word.
Well, of course I would take Samba on OpenBSD over native NT any day, as long as Win2k DC support was not an issue. I was thinking more along the lines of webserver being secured with as little as possible running, and the file and print server being a seperate box.
I would say that there are worse things to be running that Samba w/r/t exploitable vulnerabilities, but I just don't like the idea of broadcasting protocols living on the Net. If you have a real router (and it is set up properly), that's not a problem. But for instance with cable modems and some DSL solutions, the "l337 5kript |Of course the next tier would see your box as they walk the IP addresses, but that is another story.
Your point with ftp/tftp is of course valid. That, telnet, most services starting with r, anything that uses clear text is pure satan. SSLftp allows the use of DES, RSA, and uses MD5, and is mentioned in "Maximum Linux security" Which got a good review here even though no book can really teach you security.
As for nethack, it is mostly harmless, I would imagine. But be careful of shopkeepers when you get blinded!
It doesn't phase most consumers that the record company slurps the lion's share of the profits of any artist's work. Even Lars pointed that out, artists do not make money from CD's, They make money from tours.
To be honest, just about everyone I know uses Napster to download MP3's. And they all buy CD's, have been all their lives. They will continue to do so because there is quality in a good CD. The sound is better, it is not cut off, and you get pretty posters and liner notes and stuff.
The RIAA makes out like Napster is costing artists money. But in reality if CD sales went down it would not be the artists who would suffer so much as the record labels. They are the only one's making money off CD sales.
Sounds cool, but doesn't adding Samba add vulnerabilities? Apache is necessary, of course, but Nethack and Samba? Why would you use your web server for file and printer sharing? Would you like to see printouts from 1337 s|To me, it seems using an OpenBSD box like that defeats the purpose of OpenBSD.
To a degree. However, one can (and linux developers do) state requirements based on library versions and such. Lots of software says "This software works with version 2.x.x of the linux kernal and glibc x..." The nice thing about linux is that the versioning has so far been sane. Redhat's rpm (and I understand Debian's apt) packages have helped continue this sanity.
On a windows box, without strict versioning, the same problems you describe happen every day, despite it being one OS, etc. This is because the problem lies with library versions, not distributions.
Erm.. they do. They even have a click-thru eula that says as much.
I sincerely doubt that there is any music lover out there who has never in their life bought a CD, and never will.
Napster does not share all MP3's on your HD. It shares the mp3's in the directory you are downloading to. You are perfectly free to snatch these out, or not share them. If you cannot use software do not blame the software for not having features you do not know how to use.
How does FUD like this get moderated up? The FSF/GNU recognises the freeness of other licenses. Before you go putting words in their mouth, Why not see what they have to say at www.gnu.org?
There is nothing wrong with having what license you want. The problem comes when you violate the GPL. KDE violates the GPL and as such, works against the efforts of the people who have tried to create GPL'd software. How would you like someone else subverting your work?
If you create a software package, use the license you wish. If you want to call it Open Source, or Free Software, there are some basic guidelines, but this is only to create standards that reduce confusion in the market.
Even ESR agrees, IIRC that there are situations that call for other licenses. However it would all be better, IMHO if we just used GPL. Nevertheless, using a different license will not cause you to be boycotted. Do you see GNU calling for an end to Perl, Mozilla, and any number of other non-GPL'ed yet quite free projects?
Erm.. there are standards. Both RedHat and Debian are Linux. Linux is a kernel, and every Linux distro by definition uses a form of that kernel. Then there are things like POSIX compliance, X11, TCP/IP, all standards which are followed in the crafting of a Linux Distro.
There are not programs AFAIK that will only run on one distro and not another, though there are programs that say "For Red Hat" simply because they are distributed in RPM (which works on Solaris, Debian, all sorts of systems) and because the company or group that made it tested on Red Hat.
By the same token, Windows is supposed to run on Dell, Compaq, etc, but not specifically ABC Computers' boxes. Yet it does, because of standards in PC hardware.
Yes, if you want to allow binary-only distributions of someone else's work, such as a certain closed-source operating system I could mention with an excellent window manager and browser, that uses code from free software projects in its main networking components without even mentioning the fact, go ahead and use another license, and help Microsoft (oops! spilled the beans! heh) some more, and give them all your work while they bash open source with their product and ensure you cannot stay in business.
"But..but.. it's not FA-IR!"
"Well Johnny I am sorry, maybe if you would use a Free Software License next time this will not happen."
I think what he is talking about is using a different product altogether because he cannot modify the original product. If you have closed-source software, and it does not support a feature you need, Tough Noogies. Go buy/download something else.
Free software gives him the ability to add the feature to the original software, which is far superior and usually the only way to attain complex arbitrary feature sets.
IIRC, the developers who were working on Harmony were slurped up by the Gnome project, which RedHat funded heavily. I do not remember if it was RedHat starting the project or just funding it, but basically the developers that would have made Harmony started work on Gnome.
That does bring up a good point, in that perhaps one could take GTK and try to make KDE work with it, but of course KDE apps are written for Qt anyway, so...
As I read through the replies to this article, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at some of what I am reading here. Is this really Slashdot? Yes, unfortunately. People can post rather long replies to stories without understanding the first paragraph, and are thought of as insightful. Very well, let me clue you in on some insight you missed.
The main problem with the Qt license in KDE is that it stifles development of KDE. Because of the nature of the Qt license, changes must be supplied as a patch and recompile. The only legally distributed binaries are from the KDE maintainers themselves.
The license makes it hard to modify the Qt code itself, and KDE generally. The license makes the distibution of KDE as we now see it illegal. Because companies like Red Hat, Corel, etc. are technically illegally distibuting KDE and such, licenses in general, and in particular the GPL, are being undermined by general practice. If you do not defend your license, it becomes unenforcable, and everything the FSF and the Linux community has worked for is lost.
The article mentions several examples of this already happening in the sense of companies violating the GPL and getting away with it because of the situation with KDE (eg NVidia, Corel...).
The further problem is that Linux needed a desktop badly and KDE was "it" for awhile. The Troll tech guys, etc kept promising to "fix" the license while gaining marketshare. As long as they kept promising that, and opensource advocates kept believing it in good faith, KDE continued to be distributed unchallenged.
As more and more people became concerned with the situation, the Gnome project began in an effort to have a desktop that was truly free and could be modified under GPL. But it was too late, because KDE was already ubiquitous as planned.
Even now, as Gnome is comparable in performance and features to KDE, there are those who complain about its lack of stability versus KDE (personally I have not seen it, but then there are those who have said they never saw their windows box crash ;) ), which is the older project, and which is eroding the GPL by its very existence. Nevermind the illegality of this "default" desktop.
I think that the debian people are right to exclude KDE from their distribution, and by god we ought to support them in this. I like KDE, and it was the first Linux desktop i used. BUt as I became aware of the implications, I stopped using it, and switched to Gnome. If Gnome does not suit my needs, I have the benefit of source and can modify it at will without violating archaic licenses. I can include the whole modified version TOGETHER in an rpm if I wanted. And the most important thing is that I am not working towards a situation in which the Microsoft OS group can make a closed-source linux distro, distibute it for free, and take over the linux desktop like they did with Windows.
I understand that most people are pragmatic in that they don't want to use something just for its political value, as they do want to get work done and would like to evaluate a technical product on its technical merits. What teh article points out is that politics aside, the license of KDE makes it harder to modify, add features, fix bugs, etc, which is, I think a point that is all-too-often missed in the debate between pragmatic users and "rabid open source advocates."
For one thing, Office itself is closed source. That goes without saying. But the other thing to consider is that while the kernel and BSD layer of MacOSX and MacOSX server is open source, the GUI is not. Office is a GUI app and will be made for the Mac OS X gui. It would be just as hard to port to X on BSD and co. as from Windows to X.
Incidentally, I believe that the original Office runs in the "Blue Box" (Mac OS VM) on Mac OS X server. OS X client has "aqua" I am not sure if this is the same thing, but basically the idea was for Mac Apps to either run unmodified or be easily ported to the new system.
And I would buy this why? A SDRAM-based system with the same number of slots could support 2-4GB RAM. (2 now, 4 when 1GB SDRAM is more available) The RAMBUS system would be limited currently to at most 1GB, and even that might not be possible, "Since the largest RIMM readily available on the market today is 128MB."
Rambus is having trouble making large parts, and besides, did you see the cost? $550 for 128MB? No thank you, I will buy 512MB SDRAM, or a couple registered ECC 256MB, thank you very much.
RDRAMS are also notoriously hot, hotter than a Voodoo 3.. After running for a few minutes they are dangerous to handle, and say so.. that is trouble in the case. And you have to fill every slot with something, RIMMS or CRIMMS, your choice, both expensive.
I buy a computer for performance. I have no problem buying high RPM drives with fast connections because they have a good price to performance ratio. I use an Athlon processor for the same reason. Not cheapness, value because I have spent a good chunk on my system and will continue to do so.
RDRAM is astronomically higher in price, and gives negligible if any performance improvements even when paired with a system with the same amount of SDRAM, and the same system can be upgraded to a higher memory level than RDRAM may ever achieve. certainly for the same money, you could have much more SDRAM, and therefore more performance in manycases.
Kingston made it sound like Sun was trying to extend this to include some PC SDRAM technologies. If this is not the case I was misinformed.
PowerMacs have PCI. With the right drivers, they can even use the same devices as PC's in some cases.
PowerMacs can run other OS's, in fact they were designed specifically in such a way to make it easier, with Open Firmware. However Apple has screwed up alternative OS support on the PowerMac by not releasing specs to most things, and forcing them to rely on revere-engineering (whereas before all one had to do was go to the devel webpage or get a copy of Inside Macintosh to get more data than one could possibly want about the hardware.
At this point, all Apple is interested in releaing is information for programming under the MacOS. A lot of this is Jobs' doing, he always did seem to be of the persuasion that tight controls were the only way to attain true "beauty" in a design.
In a way he is right, at least as far as the MacOS is concerned. Look at what happens to Windows when you subvert the API and write directly to hardware, and use all manner of assorted undocumented hacks...