Yep. So why wouldn't people buy it retail? Because it wasn't valuable enough to them. For most people, BeOS's amazing features didn't mean as much to them as having MS Office, IE, and the rest of the ecosystem, so it would have actually been a downgrade.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
What does this mean, exactly? That they want a compiler which they can modify, distribute and not publish the source?
Obviously that's not their primary motivation since they are, in fact, publishing the source. But I suspect they want the freedom to combine it with any other source they have in any way they deem technically advantageous without the license having anything to say about it. They probably also want the freedom to control the timing and manner of the publication of the source. And yes, they probably want the ability to not publish the source in certain circumstances when they feel that doing so would be detrimental to them.
GPL is a great license for its own ecosystem, but don't try to pretend that it isn't more restrictive than BSD.
You do know that gcc being GPL does not imply that code compiled with it not the resulting binaries are GPL, right?
Yep. This has nothing to do with that. Apple builds developer tools as well as products developed with those tools.
My 3-year-old son actually had fun with the Rub-A-Dub Demo on the PS3 we downloaded off Sony Online. It uses the controllers tilt sensors to let you float a duck around the screen to collect little ducklings. You can also jump by flicking the controller up. He loves making the duck bounce around the screen.
Basically, I think it's as much about the controller as it is about the games. When you have that tactile feedback it's a lot easier to "get" the game quickly.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Although Apple states that clang is not designed to replace GCC overall, I would be surprised if Apple wasn't planning on it replacing GCC in their products. It appears to provide more performance, smaller binaries, and a freer license than GCC.
Apple already reportedly uses it to compile their graphics code so that the same code can run on either a GPU or the CPU regardless of chipset available.
As a former BeOS fan, I agree it was a great OS, but let's not whitewash the past. They had some significant design challenges ahead of them if they wanted to go mainstream. Everything from the "fragile base-class problem", which they never really solved, to support for lots of functionality most users consider basic these days had the potential to eat away at the performance.
BeOS had a local file search in 1997 that would rival OS X 10.4...which is why Apple hired the guy to help develop MacOS X 10.5.
they were a decade ahead of their time, and got killed by MSFT because of it.
"got killed"? Apple didn't buy them, and Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed, but the simple fact is that it wasn't really valuable enough for most people to want to buy it. Windows 95, Windows 2000, linux and MacOS 9 were "good enough" for most folks across most market segments.
When 2.0 comes out on disks, those will not play on any current player
This is false, according to all the information I've read. The movies will play. But the "extra" features will lack capability.
As for Blu-ray's reputed "more" space, show me a dual layer disk.
Half of all current Blu-Ray movies are dual-layer. The first was "Click" a year and a half ago. Hitachi has a 4-layer Blu-ray disc they claim play in current players, and TDK has prototyped an 8-layer Blu-ray disc.
As to the codecs, HD DVD supports more advanced codecs.
It's true that some of the sound codecs are optional on Blu-ray players but mandatory on HD DVD players. That being said, on Blu-ray they are required to have substantially higher throughput if supported. For video, they both support exactly the same codecs (MPEG2, MPEG4/AAC, and VC-1). In addition, Blu-Ray requires the player support almost 50% more throughput-- that, combined with the higher capacity, means that Blu-ray discs can be compressed less and therefore have much higher quality audio and video. That's why a side-by-side comparison of the two almost universally favors Blu-ray on all the AV sites.
Blu-ray is largely old technology with a new specification that makes them incompatible with everything else out there.
To be fair, that more accurately describes HD DVD. That's why HD DVD players are easier to produce.
Apple screwed the pooch on 10.5 in a way I'm not sure any OS vendor has done before. Microsoft, for all the crap they've done, never had a release that broke their own products.
You have some valid points, but these two statements are both false. Many linux vendors have had much worse releases than 10.5, for example, and Microsoft Windows 98 was no walk in the park. And Windows 2000 sure did break compatibility for those upgrading from the Win95 line. Sure, it was a jump to essentially a new OS, but until WinME was announced it was billed by Microsoft as 98's successor. And even then, it just put off the compatibility problems until XP for those users.
As for Apple's actions, it's hard to fault them as a company. The market seemed to reward their decision to release early and fix later, and unless that changes expect more of the same. To be honest, I preferred it the way it was released-- I installed 10.5.0 and never hit any of the serious bugs others reported, and used the extra features. It's all semantics anyway. If you just named ".0" releases "Public Beta", ".1" releases "Final Candidate", and ".2" releases "Final", you get the same thing.
I think the core of the argument against using the word "influence" is that it anthropomorphizes the information. The information is not capable of action, it just is. And since it's not capable of action, and "influencing" is an action, it doesn't directly influence. The AUTHOR and/or PRESENTER of the information influences. The person who put up the child porn website influences. The ancient Greek writers on the subject influence. And the authors of the Bible influence. The information just sits there, doing nothing.
It's a semantic argument, but I think one that is important in assigning responsibility. The reader is responsible for seeking such sources of information, and the author is responsible influencing others. The information, not being sentient, is responsible for nothing.
1. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the article. 2. It's probably completely wrong. Everything from estrogen-mimicking chemicals in plastics (in which completely unprocessed food can be stored) to similar chemicals in paint, toys, and everything else probably has far more effect than some vague measure of "how processed" your food is. It's also very much related to changing demographics, as some folks genes activate at different times and we've got an increasingly diverse nation.
I don't really buy the "better is worse if it's different" argument. The fastest growing desktop OS by far is MacOS, which is growing at twice the industry growth rate. It's very different from Windows (in some ways more different than some linux window managers), but still seems to attract many converts.
Let's get realistic. Yes, the XBox360 is still beating the PS3, but they're no longer selling twice as many per month, and there are still millions of PS3s out there. And who buys games new anymore? You can get plenty of great used games at any of your mall stores these days.
The place where I think Sony screwed up is in limiting backwards compatibility with the PS2 games. New PS2 games are STILL coming out, and the PS2 is still selling very well. Sony could capitalize on that better if they'd kept backwards compatibility.
A $300 console with one controller and no games could probably sell pretty well if it could play most popular PS2 games.
According to the original poster, the company is developing new code to replace the same function. So it's like asking the company, "Would you like the code you paid for to be competing against your new product?"
Microsoft IIS has about a 36% share of the web server market, a number which has stopped growing. (after having grown from about 25% over the last two years)
And Apache has about 50%, a number that has fallen from a high of almost 70%. Since the original poster's claim was that companies were going to be forced to adopt FOSS or die, I'd say that while I like FOSS myself, proprietary software seems to be competing very well. The one example anyone's come up with for a major FOSS application that's winning in market share isn't exactly forcing its proprietary competitor out of business.
Apache/Eclipse is dominant among.org and personal servers, but has less than 50% market share among e-commerce sites. Eclipse has tiny market share compared to Visual Studio. Firefox/Netscape was trounced by IE out of a dominant position and still hasn't recovered to 50% market share. And FreeBSD is barely a 1 pixel blip on a pie chart, while MacOS X (which is not FreeBSD, just has that as part of the kernel, and is largely proprietary anyway) is still only 5%.
Sure, there are good open source products. But the original posters claim was that open source was driving proprietary software into an inevitable "embrace FOSS or die" position, and I don't see that. Proprietary software seems to be doing quite well against open source in general.
However, there are humans who are highly resistant to HIV. In addition, the HIV strains that are less likely to cause AIDS and kill the host are the most likely to spread furthest, which means that even if HIV was not contained with retrovirals in most of the world, it would likely attenuate over time into a chronic virus like mono or chicken pox/shingles.
It is definitely possible to prevent infection through immediate and aggressive use of antiretrovirals. It's done all the time to ensure that babies born to infected mothers don't get infected if exposed through the birthing process. However, I've never heard of a case of HIV being cured through retrovirals. There are a tiny handful of cases (covered years ago in Scientific American) of people with natural "immunity" who appear to test positive for antibodies but who have zero viral loads, but that is probably more due to the immune system of the person than treatment. (Apparently, HIV uses some of the same pathways as plague, and so areas of Europe that were especially hard hit in the black death have high rates of HIV resistance.)
Yes, if you start when you're healthy, you stick rigorously to your medication schedule, and you get a little lucky, HIV can become a chronic illness instead of a killer. But I wouldn't count on it.
Not that I don't often find open source valuable and useful, but I don't see the trends you're talking about. There are very few open source products that are winning and/or dominant over their proprietary rivals. Google certainly has not gotten much adoption of their enterprise software-- they're still basically an advertising company. If Microsoft would accept that, and accept that Microsoft is NOT an advertising company, they could probably live together reasonably well.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I guess the answer to your final question depends on whether we let them stay in the country and work for our economy or deny them H1Bs and send them home to set up outsourcing businesses and improve China's economy.
I think my mini-USB on my motorola Q does that job just fine.
I guess I've had a different experience-- the only thing I've seen with a USB port is a computer. I've seen cars, planes, clock radios, and a variety of consumer goods with iPod ports.
And ironically, I had to click away a jumping JavaScript pop-in window in order to see the page talking about bloat and loading up an interface with crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so what they want is more freedom for themselves. Which is quite a different thing from freedom for the user
They ARE the user, so in this case it's the same.
Yep. So why wouldn't people buy it retail? Because it wasn't valuable enough to them. For most people, BeOS's amazing features didn't mean as much to them as having MS Office, IE, and the rest of the ecosystem, so it would have actually been a downgrade.
What does this mean, exactly? That they want a compiler which they can modify, distribute and not publish the source?
Obviously that's not their primary motivation since they are, in fact, publishing the source. But I suspect they want the freedom to combine it with any other source they have in any way they deem technically advantageous without the license having anything to say about it. They probably also want the freedom to control the timing and manner of the publication of the source. And yes, they probably want the ability to not publish the source in certain circumstances when they feel that doing so would be detrimental to them.
GPL is a great license for its own ecosystem, but don't try to pretend that it isn't more restrictive than BSD.
You do know that gcc being GPL does not imply that code compiled with it not the resulting binaries are GPL, right?
Yep. This has nothing to do with that. Apple builds developer tools as well as products developed with those tools.
My 3-year-old son actually had fun with the Rub-A-Dub Demo on the PS3 we downloaded off Sony Online. It uses the controllers tilt sensors to let you float a duck around the screen to collect little ducklings. You can also jump by flicking the controller up. He loves making the duck bounce around the screen.
Basically, I think it's as much about the controller as it is about the games. When you have that tactile feedback it's a lot easier to "get" the game quickly.
Although Apple states that clang is not designed to replace GCC overall, I would be surprised if Apple wasn't planning on it replacing GCC in their products. It appears to provide more performance, smaller binaries, and a freer license than GCC.
Apple already reportedly uses it to compile their graphics code so that the same code can run on either a GPU or the CPU regardless of chipset available.
As a former BeOS fan, I agree it was a great OS, but let's not whitewash the past. They had some significant design challenges ahead of them if they wanted to go mainstream. Everything from the "fragile base-class problem", which they never really solved, to support for lots of functionality most users consider basic these days had the potential to eat away at the performance.
...which is why Apple hired the guy to help develop MacOS X 10.5.
BeOS had a local file search in 1997 that would rival OS X 10.4
they were a decade ahead of their time, and got killed by MSFT because of it.
"got killed"? Apple didn't buy them, and Microsoft encouraged VARs to not sell it pre-installed, but the simple fact is that it wasn't really valuable enough for most people to want to buy it. Windows 95, Windows 2000, linux and MacOS 9 were "good enough" for most folks across most market segments.
When 2.0 comes out on disks, those will not play on any current player
This is false, according to all the information I've read. The movies will play. But the "extra" features will lack capability.
As for Blu-ray's reputed "more" space, show me a dual layer disk.
Half of all current Blu-Ray movies are dual-layer. The first was "Click" a year and a half ago. Hitachi has a 4-layer Blu-ray disc they claim play in current players, and TDK has prototyped an 8-layer Blu-ray disc.
As to the codecs, HD DVD supports more advanced codecs.
It's true that some of the sound codecs are optional on Blu-ray players but mandatory on HD DVD players. That being said, on Blu-ray they are required to have substantially higher throughput if supported. For video, they both support exactly the same codecs (MPEG2, MPEG4/AAC, and VC-1). In addition, Blu-Ray requires the player support almost 50% more throughput-- that, combined with the higher capacity, means that Blu-ray discs can be compressed less and therefore have much higher quality audio and video. That's why a side-by-side comparison of the two almost universally favors Blu-ray on all the AV sites.
Blu-ray is largely old technology with a new specification that makes them incompatible with everything else out there.
To be fair, that more accurately describes HD DVD. That's why HD DVD players are easier to produce.
Apple screwed the pooch on 10.5 in a way I'm not sure any OS vendor has done before. Microsoft, for all the crap they've done, never had a release that broke their own products.
You have some valid points, but these two statements are both false. Many linux vendors have had much worse releases than 10.5, for example, and Microsoft Windows 98 was no walk in the park. And Windows 2000 sure did break compatibility for those upgrading from the Win95 line. Sure, it was a jump to essentially a new OS, but until WinME was announced it was billed by Microsoft as 98's successor. And even then, it just put off the compatibility problems until XP for those users.
As for Apple's actions, it's hard to fault them as a company. The market seemed to reward their decision to release early and fix later, and unless that changes expect more of the same. To be honest, I preferred it the way it was released-- I installed 10.5.0 and never hit any of the serious bugs others reported, and used the extra features. It's all semantics anyway. If you just named ".0" releases "Public Beta", ".1" releases "Final Candidate", and ".2" releases "Final", you get the same thing.
I think the core of the argument against using the word "influence" is that it anthropomorphizes the information. The information is not capable of action, it just is. And since it's not capable of action, and "influencing" is an action, it doesn't directly influence. The AUTHOR and/or PRESENTER of the information influences. The person who put up the child porn website influences. The ancient Greek writers on the subject influence. And the authors of the Bible influence. The information just sits there, doing nothing.
It's a semantic argument, but I think one that is important in assigning responsibility. The reader is responsible for seeking such sources of information, and the author is responsible influencing others. The information, not being sentient, is responsible for nothing.
1. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the article.
2. It's probably completely wrong. Everything from estrogen-mimicking chemicals in plastics (in which completely unprocessed food can be stored) to similar chemicals in paint, toys, and everything else probably has far more effect than some vague measure of "how processed" your food is. It's also very much related to changing demographics, as some folks genes activate at different times and we've got an increasingly diverse nation.
"This is my drawer full of various lengths of wire... that's my interstellar spaceship.... here, let me show you some wire..."
I don't really buy the "better is worse if it's different" argument. The fastest growing desktop OS by far is MacOS, which is growing at twice the industry growth rate. It's very different from Windows (in some ways more different than some linux window managers), but still seems to attract many converts.
Let's get realistic. Yes, the XBox360 is still beating the PS3, but they're no longer selling twice as many per month, and there are still millions of PS3s out there. And who buys games new anymore? You can get plenty of great used games at any of your mall stores these days.
The place where I think Sony screwed up is in limiting backwards compatibility with the PS2 games. New PS2 games are STILL coming out, and the PS2 is still selling very well. Sony could capitalize on that better if they'd kept backwards compatibility.
A $300 console with one controller and no games could probably sell pretty well if it could play most popular PS2 games.
After all, a group of muslim children named a teddy bear after him but their teacher was the one who was almost stoned to death.
Actually, in the case you're referring to, the teddy bear was named after a popular kid in the class named Muhammad.
According to the original poster, the company is developing new code to replace the same function. So it's like asking the company, "Would you like the code you paid for to be competing against your new product?"
Microsoft IIS has about a 36% share of the web server market, a number which has stopped growing. (after having grown from about 25% over the last two years)
And Apache has about 50%, a number that has fallen from a high of almost 70%. Since the original poster's claim was that companies were going to be forced to adopt FOSS or die, I'd say that while I like FOSS myself, proprietary software seems to be competing very well. The one example anyone's come up with for a major FOSS application that's winning in market share isn't exactly forcing its proprietary competitor out of business.
Apache/Eclipse is dominant among .org and personal servers, but has less than 50% market share among e-commerce sites. Eclipse has tiny market share compared to Visual Studio. Firefox/Netscape was trounced by IE out of a dominant position and still hasn't recovered to 50% market share. And FreeBSD is barely a 1 pixel blip on a pie chart, while MacOS X (which is not FreeBSD, just has that as part of the kernel, and is largely proprietary anyway) is still only 5%.
Sure, there are good open source products. But the original posters claim was that open source was driving proprietary software into an inevitable "embrace FOSS or die" position, and I don't see that. Proprietary software seems to be doing quite well against open source in general.
However, there are humans who are highly resistant to HIV. In addition, the HIV strains that are less likely to cause AIDS and kill the host are the most likely to spread furthest, which means that even if HIV was not contained with retrovirals in most of the world, it would likely attenuate over time into a chronic virus like mono or chicken pox/shingles.
It is definitely possible to prevent infection through immediate and aggressive use of antiretrovirals. It's done all the time to ensure that babies born to infected mothers don't get infected if exposed through the birthing process. However, I've never heard of a case of HIV being cured through retrovirals. There are a tiny handful of cases (covered years ago in Scientific American) of people with natural "immunity" who appear to test positive for antibodies but who have zero viral loads, but that is probably more due to the immune system of the person than treatment. (Apparently, HIV uses some of the same pathways as plague, and so areas of Europe that were especially hard hit in the black death have high rates of HIV resistance.)
Yes, if you start when you're healthy, you stick rigorously to your medication schedule, and you get a little lucky, HIV can become a chronic illness instead of a killer. But I wouldn't count on it.
(I'm not a doc.)
Not that I don't often find open source valuable and useful, but I don't see the trends you're talking about. There are very few open source products that are winning and/or dominant over their proprietary rivals. Google certainly has not gotten much adoption of their enterprise software-- they're still basically an advertising company. If Microsoft would accept that, and accept that Microsoft is NOT an advertising company, they could probably live together reasonably well.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I guess the answer to your final question depends on whether we let them stay in the country and work for our economy or deny them H1Bs and send them home to set up outsourcing businesses and improve China's economy.
I meant a port you can use to get power from. I only see powered USB ports on computers. Not cars, nor airplanes, nor clock radios, etc.
I think my mini-USB on my motorola Q does that job just fine.
I guess I've had a different experience-- the only thing I've seen with a USB port is a computer. I've seen cars, planes, clock radios, and a variety of consumer goods with iPod ports.
And ironically, I had to click away a jumping JavaScript pop-in window in order to see the page talking about bloat and loading up an interface with crap.