I dont think you have to dominate the middle class in order to be successful (unless you measure success by money, power and greed).
Jobs and apple are very successful and improving head on. Lets take a brief tour of their success (what I am aware of): iMac, G4, Cube, OS X, New iMac.
I think Apple is an innovator (as is Jobs) and in that field they are one of the most successful!
In a nutshell there's nothing wrong with innovating, being creative and leading the way. MS has never innovated (they are copycats), they are not reliable (think of how unstable their products are, and how unsecure) and the ease of use of their products is relative if you associate this with their unreliability. They were just lucky as they were amongst the first in their market.
To me apple makes great products, and I think all people would buy them if they weren't afraid of compatability.
Please share your wonderful insights into the complex world of linux licensing!!
If you're sure why linux wasn't licensed to apple maybe you could tell us all why?
The real reason is *bsd is a better os in general!
I've tried out linux and FreeBSD and I go for FreeBSD all the way. It's a unified project without a 1,000 handfulls of distros.
Its common sense not to rely on net surveys, and accounting for *BSD users based on USENET postings is a poor populational sample. A good introductory statistics course would fit you well.
You didn't mention daemonnews or apple? Do you think apple will let *BSD die after OS X is based on FreeBSD??
Being as FreeBSD is open source much of its greatness comes from OS hobbyists. It seems you don't know what you are talking about, or my eyes are selling me out! hopefully not to ms.
Fact: Your numeric skills are dead
Fact: *BSD is alive and rockin'
do you think that BSD as the basis for Mac OS X is outstripping all other *linux variants combined? Or *BSD (Free, Open, Net) are the ones outstripping *linux?
I liked the article, its great for newbies to have more references.
However, i disagree with this guy, he says XP is "the most complete OS" he's used. WHAT?? Truly HE must be a newbie., not that theres any thing wrong with that but I thought it was kind of a contradiction, i dont know about you guys?
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to add that Microsoft's new XP is just W2k with a cute theme pointed towards "coolness"
I dont think you have to dominate the middle class in order to be successful (unless you measure success by money, power and greed).
Jobs and apple are very successful and improving head on. Lets take a brief tour of their success (what I am aware of): iMac, G4, Cube, OS X, New iMac.
I think Apple is an innovator (as is Jobs) and in that field they are one of the most successful!
In a nutshell there's nothing wrong with innovating, being creative and leading the way. MS has never innovated (they are copycats), they are not reliable (think of how unstable their products are, and how unsecure) and the ease of use of their products is relative if you associate this with their unreliability. They were just lucky as they were amongst the first in their market.
To me apple makes great products, and I think all people would buy them if they weren't afraid of compatability.
Please share your wonderful insights into the complex world of linux licensing!!
If you're sure why linux wasn't licensed to apple maybe you could tell us all why?
The real reason is *bsd is a better os in general!
fact: you are a wannabe newbie
What are you securing?? winblows??
I've tried out linux and FreeBSD and I go for FreeBSD all the way. It's a unified project without a 1,000 handfulls of distros.
Its common sense not to rely on net surveys, and accounting for *BSD users based on USENET postings is a poor populational sample. A good introductory statistics course would fit you well.
You didn't mention daemonnews or apple? Do you think apple will let *BSD die after OS X is based on FreeBSD??
Being as FreeBSD is open source much of its greatness comes from OS hobbyists. It seems you don't know what you are talking about, or my eyes are selling me out! hopefully not to ms.
Fact: Your numeric skills are dead
Fact: *BSD is alive and rockin'
How about some features OpenBSD provides such as an encrypted swap space?? I dont think FreeBSD provides that.
I agree with the claim that systems are not secure but trusted to a certain degree.
One more thing, if we take the BSD's, Linux, Solaris and install Apache there'd be no difference in security amongst these systems? I dont think so.
do you think that BSD as the basis for Mac OS X is outstripping all other *linux variants combined? Or *BSD (Free, Open, Net) are the ones outstripping *linux?
Have you read the Hacker Ethic, if so do you agree with the concepts of open source there exposed?
I liked the article, its great for newbies to have more references.
However, i disagree with this guy, he says XP is "the most complete OS" he's used. WHAT?? Truly HE must be a newbie., not that theres any thing wrong with that but I thought it was kind of a contradiction, i dont know about you guys?