In order to restore the conditions of fair competition, the Commission has imposed the following remedies:
As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.
To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
Sounds like to me that they would have to provide the APIs (not the source!) to the SMB file sharing protocol, and, for instance, allow anyone, including Macs and Linux, to work seamlessly with Active Directory and Exchange. Note: Microsoft will be able to "reasonably charge" for that information. Personally, I think this is a big thing for getting OS X into the Enterprise; I can certainly forsee Apple paying for that access.
I RTFA, and I didn't see: what happens if they don't comply, or comply 1/2 and it's found that it doesn't cut it?
And this will be a bigger story if/when the sanctions immediately apply, instead of being enjoined until the end of the appeals process. Could go either way, I guess; but the first wouldn't allow Microsoft to play a waiting game.
I can imagine the guy that noticed this first. Probably went something like: looks at actuators. looks at diagram of how they're to be installed. looks at diagram again. looks at actuators. turns diagram around; notices that the legend is now upside down, so concludes that can't be it. checks other pages of diagram to see if this page is unusual--different view, maybe. finds that it isn't. checks back for errata. finds none.
Looks around. "Hey Bob, what do you make of this?" Thinks about all the work that day that isn't going to get done, because now management and, if he's lucky, congressional inspectors are going to crawl up his ass. At least he knows that he didn't *install* the things.
it's not that simple, and surely the number of people who sit that and go "I'm going to develop this cool software because I hate America" must be tiny. Most of them are doing it for the glory.
Maybe. But the number of people who would be interested in adopting it, because they can't be sure that the CIA, NSA, and the US State department aren't spying on them, is larger than you suppose. Maybe this was a tinfoil hat reason until about 3 years ago, but I can only imagine the French CIO wondering how much the State department knew about his allegiances...
I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.
When a billion Chinese + Europeans + Russians + Arabs + anybody else that has a recently developed case of paranoia that the CIA and NSA are tracking them decide to dump Microsoft in favor of an OS whose source they can inspect, it's not going to matter who you want to be associated with.
America is likely to be the last consumer of Microsoft in the world, just like our measurement system.
Honest to God, if you're the CIO for the State department of a country that has interests opposite those of the US, Microsoft's "Open Code" program wouldn't cut it--if you can't compile and use it yourself, you have no idea of what the differences are between what you were shown and what you were given. And you have the technical resources to roll-your own, or at least inspect available Linux sources.
I think that's what Andreesen meant, more than anything else.
Along these lines, an old interview from an IT dept at a hotel: "we deployed Linux because we didn't want employees surfing at work. And, as Microsoft so amply demonstrated, you can't remove the browser from Windows. Linux had no such issue."
While the comment about the browser is funny because it's ironic, it remains a truism that you can do this to any other component of the system, as well, for instance IM, solitaire, etc.
While you could leave those systems in place and then develop a security policy that restricts their usage, isn't it better to remove them altogether if you're able?
Actually, I'd be very interested in how Microsoft decide to differentiate themselves in terms of a search product. Obviously, sinking this much money into a completely different search means they must have some sort of strategy for toppling Google off the throne, right?
How about default search in all Microsoft based browsers? Anti-competitive, sure, but what do they care? In the 5 years it'll take to prosecute, there'll be no more Google, and the DOJ will be written another check. Since when does Microsoft compete on quality?
It's hard to get MythTV going, for example, and the technology is genuinely useful, so a company that sold prerolled myth tv boxes, with working remote controls, the ability to send video out to a normal tv, support for a home video lan, and all of that, would probably find a small enthusiast market. I think you could probably charge a little more too -- there's a kind of gadget freak who would buy it and not mind an extra hundred or two for something that was well built, from a company with good support.
They do; they call it a "TiVo". Hard to know their fortunes, exactly; you can still buy their product, but their financials aren't promising. And oh--you thought of MythTV instead of Tivo because you were thinking of cost, not value. You wanted all you described at MythTV prices; instead, you can get all you described at TiVo prices. The difference between the two is what is costs to provide those features:)
While many more games come out for the PC, there are are fair few that make it to the Mac: UT2004, Halo, Neverwinter Nights, Shadowbane, Everquest, Ghost Recon. And more. Yet Macs still have a 3% marketshare. It'll take more than just having games, or Macs would have been in a better position already. Mostly, it'll take not having Windows on your new computer already, but also an interface with a consistent metaphor that never requires the command line, etc.
Lots of tutorials, some more technical than others: webmonkey. Wired said they're pulling the plug, however, so you might want to archive the site if HD space permits.
Ambrosia has a line of games that I think would be kid safe; Uplink is fun and challenging, and no violence or nekkid, but maybe it simulates "hacking" too closely. "Nova" is a Space Trader game, so simulates some economic theory. I don't recall anything offensive in it, but you have a pretty low bar, too.
There's also iConquer from KavaSoft, a RISK-alike that is very like.
Also try Apple's Product Finder; it reminds me that there's several good racing/skating games that aren't offensive, and lots and lots of strategy games. There's even a "kids" section from which too chose.
Good luck! And try posting to some of the Apple lists! I think many of us Mac IT folk are interested to know how this thing is shaking out in Maine.
Not trying to flame or troll, but I mean, seriously, if you posted asking about a software solution for your Mac and people started posting about all sorts of Windows and Linux software, wouldn't you be annoyed? Why is it that Mac people feel compelled to do this all the time? =)
Because we've been on the other side of the stick so often. Heres an example Ask Slashdot: "I'm a Mac user, what games do you recommend? I especially like MMORPG and First Person Shooters. Thanks!" How many responses would we get that would start like "well, it doesn't run on a Mac, but I sure enjoyed playing foo".
So, when you ask about how to pound in a nail with a screwdriver, we just want to leap up and say "See! My computing choice really is defensible!" That's why. To answer your question.
They should have known better and whoever authorized this should get shit-canned.
You can be quite sure that they did know better, but cared about breaking the rule less. Really, what do you think is going to happen to Microsoft? That the NCMI contract is going to be canceled? Not likely. So Microsoft just bought themselves some goodwill--and increased the demand for their server products. And at no practical penalty. Why shouldn't they do this?
You might be interested in the one-time use Credit Card that I have. From MBNA, it requires that you get one of their cards, and then sign up for an online account; afterwards, you sign back in to the online page, and then can set limits + expiration dates on any given purchase. I use it whenever a physical card isn't required by the vendor, which includes over the phone transactions etc. Works with my Mac OS X and Safari.
Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.
Microsoft assumes that you'll purchase a site-license OS upgrade sooner or later. Are they wrong? Again, what are you going to say: a) we're deploying Linux! And, going to retrain 10,000 users! And IT! And going to re-develop our crufty, no-source, in-house, business critical apps! b) Go with OS X! As above, but now, we also have to buy 10,000 iMacs! c) Stay on Win2000 forever--as long as you define forever only as long as you offer security support, and the apps that we need will still run on it; which is more like 5 years at the most.
Basically, Microsoft has you by the balls. The sooner you realize you're their bitch, their money factory, that you (and your company) is really just working for them, the better. Frankly, you're lucky that Microsoft doesn't charge more for their upgrades because, really, they could charge whatever the fuck they wanted, and what are you going to do about it? What are you gonna do when Microsoft releases Longhorn, and, to pay for 5 years of development, they charge $500/user? Your options are listed above. Basically, you can either a) suck it up, and stop crying, and realize that you're working for Microsoft, not the other way around, or b) switch to another platform right now, today, and suck on the costs of migration. Because every day you wait is another day that you'll have worked for Microsoft, and simply put off the inevitable, without coming any closer to avoiding it. When your corner office complains about the cost, you can remind them that they and their ilk are the ones that voted Ashcroft "Slap on the wrist" into office, and this is the thanks that they get.
Why this comes as a surprise to anyone is beyond me--why do you think use of monopoly power to extend into other markets is illegal in the first place? Do you think it's because some bleeding liberal hippies got a bill passed once, or maybe actually because some dead white economists realized the real, profound, and lasting damage a monopoly could do to our economic system?
If this sounds like a whiny troll, well, it is. But every non-Windows based IT person saw this coming (all three of them), and it's why the monopoly trial was so important. That Microsoft beat the rap, and got so many to leap to their defense, is going to be rewarded. In spades.
Seriously, when I read comments like this I think "What was the last Linux you used, Red Hat 5?
Well, I haven't much; you don't have to read/., you know. And I thought I tipped my hand by saying "As a Mac user"...
But this was in response to the grandparent, who suggested that the original article's author simply needed to use "mp3burn -o 'dev=x,x,x speed=XX' *mp"--so I guess he hasn't used Linux much, either. And it was in response to that suggestion that I was commenting.
Was this intentionally ironic? You are aware that Linux and Mac have a roughly equal share of the desktop market, aren't you?
Not according to the Google Zeitgeist. I will concede it's not a perfect tool for measuring desktop usage--but can you offer a better one? And trust me, Mac users have as much reason to forge their UA as do Linux users; it just may be a little more difficult, but still quite possible. And I will readily concede that there's sh*tloads more Linux in the server room than Apple's, which isn't measured by the Zeitgeist, but we weren't talking about that.
It's far easier to slap a GUI frontend on a CLI app than the other way around.
That's a real interesting point, and I think it has a lot of merit. There are a few tools in the OS X world that I wish had a CLI but don't (Retrospect), and they'll probably never get them. Whereas, we're seeing lots of CLI apps get a shiny GUI interface that brings them to the masses; what has spurred that transformation is Apple providing a simple IDE in AppleScript Studio for that express purpose. With it, one can use buttons, menu pulldowns, and form boxes that simply pass variables to CLI scripts, and supports graphical interaction. For example, there's tons of FTP OS X software that was clearly made with this Apple IDE, and a fair few other apps that enable preferences in the OS that are otherwise only available through the CLI.
Does Linux have an IDE that will quickly and painlessly bolt GUIs onto CLI tools? If not, I recommend that one be devloped. With it, the next time someone says "you just need to type foo with flag -RvgT (but not capital V!) the very next poster can link to his GUI tool that's a frontend to the suggestion, and 10x as many people will use it, including your grandma. And then I think you'll start to see real movement in that Zeitgeist.
Let me reply to this as a Mac user. When OS X was being rolled out (over?) the Mac using faithful, it was understood that while the CLI was present, it's use (and understanding) should be regarded as a feature, but never never to be required. To require the use of the CLI for any task was to be considered a failure of the software HCI design.
No software that's installed by default, and in fact, almost no software that wasn't originally Unix based, uses the CLI as a primary tool of interaction.
Now, maybe Linux doesn't want to be as "dumbed down" as OS X--fine. But until Linux is able to be run for day to day operation without the use of the CLI at all it will not gain mass marketshare acceptance. Either live with niche desktop usage, or change the way the apps work so that no CLI is required.
I just spent 2 weeks screwing with virus damage because certain users have access to things they don't need
Computers that run Windows?
Re:Why would I use this over Dantz Retrospect?
on
BRU LE for Mac OS X
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Fred: you might grab a clue. It's really great that you got it working with a Beige G3 in 1998, but the parent poster specifically mentioned Apple's Xserve RAID. Did you know, for instance, that until this very latest version of Retrospect, that it couldn't work with 1TB volumes?
Depending on how you set up your RAID, that would make it incompatible with the Xserve RAID on that issue alone. If you had signed that PO, I guess it'd be you that'd be looking for another career, and for the justifiable offense of talking out your ass.
I wonder if we'll ever see an Xbox2 emu for the Macintosh? If memory serves, wasnt the first commercial Playstation emulator for the Mac?
Yes. And even more interesting, Microsoft now owns the same company (Connectix, better known for making Virtual PC) that originally did the PS emulation.
The chances that I'll be able to play Halo 2 on my G5 are looking up, I think. (Whereas before they were strictly nil, I think now they've improved to "cold day in hell.")
The Prius can come with a lock/ignition key that is actually a card that you never need to remove from your wallet: if you come close enough to the car, it will detect that you have said key and unlock the door for you; similarly, it will detect that you have the proper authority to engage the ignition, and you just have to push a button to get it started.
Interesting question about the sensing, though; does the battery run constantly, listening for the key? If so, can it eventually run down? I would guess you would need to have the car not run for a long, long time for this to happen.
I have searched the net unsuccessfully, browsed news groups, asked my ISP techies, and even asked my wife.
If this is something that she might know, I suggest you improve your communication. If it's not, why did you bother? On the off-chance that she was bored from playing Minesweeper one day, so went tooling through her firewall configuration file?
Slashdot Mirror
In order to restore the conditions of fair competition, the Commission has imposed the following remedies: As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products. To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.
Sounds like to me that they would have to provide the APIs (not the source!) to the SMB file sharing protocol, and, for instance, allow anyone, including Macs and Linux, to work seamlessly with Active Directory and Exchange. Note: Microsoft will be able to "reasonably charge" for that information. Personally, I think this is a big thing for getting OS X into the Enterprise; I can certainly forsee Apple paying for that access.
I RTFA, and I didn't see: what happens if they don't comply, or comply 1/2 and it's found that it doesn't cut it?
And this will be a bigger story if/when the sanctions immediately apply, instead of being enjoined until the end of the appeals process. Could go either way, I guess; but the first wouldn't allow Microsoft to play a waiting game.
I can imagine the guy that noticed this first. Probably went something like: looks at actuators. looks at diagram of how they're to be installed. looks at diagram again. looks at actuators. turns diagram around; notices that the legend is now upside down, so concludes that can't be it. checks other pages of diagram to see if this page is unusual--different view, maybe. finds that it isn't. checks back for errata. finds none.
Looks around. "Hey Bob, what do you make of this?" Thinks about all the work that day that isn't going to get done, because now management and, if he's lucky, congressional inspectors are going to crawl up his ass. At least he knows that he didn't *install* the things.
it's not that simple, and surely the number of people who sit that and go "I'm going to develop this cool software because I hate America" must be tiny. Most of them are doing it for the glory.
Maybe. But the number of people who would be interested in adopting it, because they can't be sure that the CIA, NSA, and the US State department aren't spying on them, is larger than you suppose. Maybe this was a tinfoil hat reason until about 3 years ago, but I can only imagine the French CIO wondering how much the State department knew about his allegiances...
I really take exception to this, although it may be true. I think it's true that many open-source devs are europeans who have green-ish attitudes, it's immaterial, unhelpful, and boring. I for one don't wish to be associated with this and I raise an eyebrow at Andreesen for thinking this. If Kerry thought looking anti-American is going to help him, or you think it will help Linux, you are wrong. It is not going to resonate with people who aren't already on your side.
When a billion Chinese + Europeans + Russians + Arabs + anybody else that has a recently developed case of paranoia that the CIA and NSA are tracking them decide to dump Microsoft in favor of an OS whose source they can inspect, it's not going to matter who you want to be associated with.
America is likely to be the last consumer of Microsoft in the world, just like our measurement system.
Honest to God, if you're the CIO for the State department of a country that has interests opposite those of the US, Microsoft's "Open Code" program wouldn't cut it--if you can't compile and use it yourself, you have no idea of what the differences are between what you were shown and what you were given. And you have the technical resources to roll-your own, or at least inspect available Linux sources.
I think that's what Andreesen meant, more than anything else.
Along these lines, an old interview from an IT dept at a hotel: "we deployed Linux because we didn't want employees surfing at work. And, as Microsoft so amply demonstrated, you can't remove the browser from Windows. Linux had no such issue."
While the comment about the browser is funny because it's ironic, it remains a truism that you can do this to any other component of the system, as well, for instance IM, solitaire, etc.
While you could leave those systems in place and then develop a security policy that restricts their usage, isn't it better to remove them altogether if you're able?
Actually, I'd be very interested in how Microsoft decide to differentiate themselves in terms of a search product. Obviously, sinking this much money into a completely different search means they must have some sort of strategy for toppling Google off the throne, right?
How about default search in all Microsoft based browsers? Anti-competitive, sure, but what do they care? In the 5 years it'll take to prosecute, there'll be no more Google, and the DOJ will be written another check. Since when does Microsoft compete on quality?
It's hard to get MythTV going, for example, and the technology is genuinely useful, so a company that sold prerolled myth tv boxes, with working remote controls, the ability to send video out to a normal tv, support for a home video lan, and all of that, would probably find a small enthusiast market. I think you could probably charge a little more too -- there's a kind of gadget freak who would buy it and not mind an extra hundred or two for something that was well built, from a company with good support.
They do; they call it a "TiVo". Hard to know their fortunes, exactly; you can still buy their product, but their financials aren't promising. And oh--you thought of MythTV instead of Tivo because you were thinking of cost, not value. You wanted all you described at MythTV prices; instead, you can get all you described at TiVo prices. The difference between the two is what is costs to provide those features
While many more games come out for the PC, there are are fair few that make it to the Mac: UT2004, Halo, Neverwinter Nights, Shadowbane, Everquest, Ghost Recon. And more. Yet Macs still have a 3% marketshare. It'll take more than just having games, or Macs would have been in a better position already. Mostly, it'll take not having Windows on your new computer already, but also an interface with a consistent metaphor that never requires the command line, etc.
dx2000 Specs from HP:
- Linux - Mandrake 9.2
- Intel(R) Pentium(R)2.80A GHz/533MHz
- 256MB DDR 400MHz (2X128)
- Integrated Intel(R) Extreme graphics2 (64MB equivalent)
- 40GB PATA/100 5400RPM
- 16X/40X DVD-ROM Linux and audio cable for Linux
$627Choosing Linux instead of XP gets you an upgrade to a DVD player from a plain CD, and saves you $21. Hum.
Lots of tutorials, some more technical than others: webmonkey. Wired said they're pulling the plug, however, so you might want to archive the site if HD space permits.
Ambrosia has a line of games that I think would be kid safe; Uplink is fun and challenging, and no violence or nekkid, but maybe it simulates "hacking" too closely. "Nova" is a Space Trader game, so simulates some economic theory. I don't recall anything offensive in it, but you have a pretty low bar, too.
There's also iConquer from KavaSoft, a RISK-alike that is very like.
Also try Apple's Product Finder; it reminds me that there's several good racing/skating games that aren't offensive, and lots and lots of strategy games. There's even a "kids" section from which too chose.
Good luck! And try posting to some of the Apple lists! I think many of us Mac IT folk are interested to know how this thing is shaking out in Maine.
Not trying to flame or troll, but I mean, seriously, if you posted asking about a software solution for your Mac and people started posting about all sorts of Windows and Linux software, wouldn't you be annoyed? Why is it that Mac people feel compelled to do this all the time? =)
Because we've been on the other side of the stick so often. Heres an example Ask Slashdot: "I'm a Mac user, what games do you recommend? I especially like MMORPG and First Person Shooters. Thanks!" How many responses would we get that would start like "well, it doesn't run on a Mac, but I sure enjoyed playing foo".
So, when you ask about how to pound in a nail with a screwdriver, we just want to leap up and say "See! My computing choice really is defensible!" That's why. To answer your question.
They should have known better and whoever authorized this should get shit-canned.
You can be quite sure that they did know better, but cared about breaking the rule less. Really, what do you think is going to happen to Microsoft? That the NCMI contract is going to be canceled? Not likely. So Microsoft just bought themselves some goodwill--and increased the demand for their server products. And at no practical penalty. Why shouldn't they do this?
You might be interested in the one-time use Credit Card that I have. From MBNA, it requires that you get one of their cards, and then sign up for an online account; afterwards, you sign back in to the online page, and then can set limits + expiration dates on any given purchase. I use it whenever a physical card isn't required by the vendor, which includes over the phone transactions etc. Works with my Mac OS X and Safari.
Microsoft seems to assume that their upgrades will always meet these requirements.
Microsoft assumes that you'll purchase a site-license OS upgrade sooner or later. Are they wrong? Again, what are you going to say: a) we're deploying Linux! And, going to retrain 10,000 users! And IT! And going to re-develop our crufty, no-source, in-house, business critical apps! b) Go with OS X! As above, but now, we also have to buy 10,000 iMacs! c) Stay on Win2000 forever--as long as you define forever only as long as you offer security support, and the apps that we need will still run on it; which is more like 5 years at the most.
Basically, Microsoft has you by the balls. The sooner you realize you're their bitch, their money factory, that you (and your company) is really just working for them, the better. Frankly, you're lucky that Microsoft doesn't charge more for their upgrades because, really, they could charge whatever the fuck they wanted, and what are you going to do about it? What are you gonna do when Microsoft releases Longhorn, and, to pay for 5 years of development, they charge $500/user? Your options are listed above. Basically, you can either a) suck it up, and stop crying, and realize that you're working for Microsoft, not the other way around, or b) switch to another platform right now, today, and suck on the costs of migration. Because every day you wait is another day that you'll have worked for Microsoft, and simply put off the inevitable, without coming any closer to avoiding it. When your corner office complains about the cost, you can remind them that they and their ilk are the ones that voted Ashcroft "Slap on the wrist" into office, and this is the thanks that they get.
Why this comes as a surprise to anyone is beyond me--why do you think use of monopoly power to extend into other markets is illegal in the first place? Do you think it's because some bleeding liberal hippies got a bill passed once, or maybe actually because some dead white economists realized the real, profound, and lasting damage a monopoly could do to our economic system?
If this sounds like a whiny troll, well, it is. But every non-Windows based IT person saw this coming (all three of them), and it's why the monopoly trial was so important. That Microsoft beat the rap, and got so many to leap to their defense, is going to be rewarded. In spades.
Rule of thumb: I'll support you for free if you buy a Mac. If you buy a PC, you use the Yellow Pages. Problem solved.
Everyone I know that is halfway technically savvy finds this a disadvantage
That is not the majority of users, however. And, due to network effects, what the majority uses matters.
Seriously, when I read comments like this I think "What was the last Linux you used, Red Hat 5?
Well, I haven't much; you don't have to read
But this was in response to the grandparent, who suggested that the original article's author simply needed to use "mp3burn -o 'dev=x,x,x speed=XX' *mp"--so I guess he hasn't used Linux much, either. And it was in response to that suggestion that I was commenting.
Was this intentionally ironic? You are aware that Linux and Mac have a roughly equal share of the desktop market, aren't you?
Not according to the Google Zeitgeist. I will concede it's not a perfect tool for measuring desktop usage--but can you offer a better one? And trust me, Mac users have as much reason to forge their UA as do Linux users; it just may be a little more difficult, but still quite possible. And I will readily concede that there's sh*tloads more Linux in the server room than Apple's, which isn't measured by the Zeitgeist, but we weren't talking about that.
It's far easier to slap a GUI frontend on a CLI app than the other way around.
That's a real interesting point, and I think it has a lot of merit. There are a few tools in the OS X world that I wish had a CLI but don't (Retrospect), and they'll probably never get them. Whereas, we're seeing lots of CLI apps get a shiny GUI interface that brings them to the masses; what has spurred that transformation is Apple providing a simple IDE in AppleScript Studio for that express purpose. With it, one can use buttons, menu pulldowns, and form boxes that simply pass variables to CLI scripts, and supports graphical interaction. For example, there's tons of FTP OS X software that was clearly made with this Apple IDE, and a fair few other apps that enable preferences in the OS that are otherwise only available through the CLI.
Does Linux have an IDE that will quickly and painlessly bolt GUIs onto CLI tools? If not, I recommend that one be devloped. With it, the next time someone says "you just need to type foo with flag -RvgT (but not capital V!) the very next poster can link to his GUI tool that's a frontend to the suggestion, and 10x as many people will use it, including your grandma. And then I think you'll start to see real movement in that Zeitgeist.
And why shouldn't they?
Let me reply to this as a Mac user. When OS X was being rolled out (over?) the Mac using faithful, it was understood that while the CLI was present, it's use (and understanding) should be regarded as a feature, but never never to be required. To require the use of the CLI for any task was to be considered a failure of the software HCI design.
No software that's installed by default, and in fact, almost no software that wasn't originally Unix based, uses the CLI as a primary tool of interaction.
Now, maybe Linux doesn't want to be as "dumbed down" as OS X--fine. But until Linux is able to be run for day to day operation without the use of the CLI at all it will not gain mass marketshare acceptance. Either live with niche desktop usage, or change the way the apps work so that no CLI is required.
I just spent 2 weeks screwing with virus damage because certain users have access to things they don't need
Computers that run Windows?
Fred: you might grab a clue. It's really great that you got it working with a Beige G3 in 1998, but the parent poster specifically mentioned Apple's Xserve RAID. Did you know, for instance, that until this very latest version of Retrospect, that it couldn't work with 1TB volumes?
Depending on how you set up your RAID, that would make it incompatible with the Xserve RAID on that issue alone. If you had signed that PO, I guess it'd be you that'd be looking for another career, and for the justifiable offense of talking out your ass.
I wonder if we'll ever see an Xbox2 emu for the Macintosh? If memory serves, wasnt the first commercial Playstation emulator for the Mac?
Yes. And even more interesting, Microsoft now owns the same company (Connectix, better known for making Virtual PC) that originally did the PS emulation.
The chances that I'll be able to play Halo 2 on my G5 are looking up, I think. (Whereas before they were strictly nil, I think now they've improved to "cold day in hell.")
The Prius can come with a lock/ignition key that is actually a card that you never need to remove from your wallet: if you come close enough to the car, it will detect that you have said key and unlock the door for you; similarly, it will detect that you have the proper authority to engage the ignition, and you just have to push a button to get it started.
Interesting question about the sensing, though; does the battery run constantly, listening for the key? If so, can it eventually run down? I would guess you would need to have the car not run for a long, long time for this to happen.
I have searched the net unsuccessfully, browsed news groups, asked my ISP techies, and even asked my wife.
If this is something that she might know, I suggest you improve your communication. If it's not, why did you bother? On the off-chance that she was bored from playing Minesweeper one day, so went tooling through her firewall configuration file?