Sure, but most of those embedded devices don't run Linux either. Remember your original comment was to compare the embedded market between Linux and Apple, not Apple vs everything else.
Sure, you can get a used PC for free if you're lucky and most probably it will have Windows on it.
I don't see how this supports the argument that Linux is the reason for MS's current problems. Did the number of people who are giving away computers with Linux installed suddenly increase significantly in the last quarter?
"Yeah, because no one is going to be more interested in a ZERO COST product during a global economic crisis."
Broadcast TV is a ZERO COST product too - as long as your brain can process the signal directly.
Most of us require a TV set for TV and a computer for Linux. Without investing a minimum of several hundred dollars for a PC, Linux is a ZERO VALUE product.
"Who are the risk takers and who the opportunists?"
Isn't it obvious?
"This bussiness model is about packaging community made software and getting it ready for prime time by adding value add "stuff" (training, QA, support and consulting)."
I think adding real value would be improving the product in such a way that it minimizes the need for training, support, and consulting.
It's like the American vs Japanese view of quality. Do you want to have a long warranty to fix your car when it breaks or do you want a car that doesn't break?
As it turned out, Xerox waited too long to enforce its copyrights. Note that the Apple spokesperson never claimed that Apple had a license from Xerox - a more compelling argument than claiming that there was no relationship between the GUIs. From that I conclude that even Apple lawyers knew there was no such agreement.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply saying whatever benefit there may be for that economic model it doesn't really apply to starting a project. Of course, I doubt that all the early implementors of Linux refused to make a profit.
It means they couldn't have listed or collected all communications because that wasn't technically possible. That doesn't mean they didn't listen to yours.
"Some people just want to believe this stuff so much they'll grasp at any old straw that agrees with their narrow view of the government."
That might apply to you as well. You don't think its possible that the government might spy on journalists? It's been proven to have happened with at least one administration (Nixon) in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the last thing we want is technology created by fat people!
Of course there are lots of people in the world that would love to legally work in the US even temporarily . The H1Bs are among the luckiest ones.
"... the companies will on their hand want to keep the people best suited to have an upper edge in the competition"
i.e. cheaper.
Well, before the government started to make life difficult for them, MS didn't bet on elections at all.
They learned the hard way what happens if you don't pay any protection money.
Thanks for the info, but it's still not evidence that MS's current problems are due to Linux.
Sure, but most of those embedded devices don't run Linux either. Remember your original comment was to compare the embedded market between Linux and Apple, not Apple vs everything else.
"The Macintosh demonstrated that it was possible and profitable to create a machine to be used by millions and millions of people"
Wasn't that already well demonstrated by the phone?
Sure, you can get a used PC for free if you're lucky and most probably it will have Windows on it.
I don't see how this supports the argument that Linux is the reason for MS's current problems. Did the number of people who are giving away computers with Linux installed suddenly increase significantly in the last quarter?
People complain about PHBs being clueless but then assume they know what they're doing at layoff time. What's with that?
You do realize that the iPod and iPhone are embedded devices, right?
"Yeah, because no one is going to be more interested in a ZERO COST product during a global economic crisis."
Broadcast TV is a ZERO COST product too - as long as your brain can process the signal directly.
Most of us require a TV set for TV and a computer for Linux. Without investing a minimum of several hundred dollars for a PC, Linux is a ZERO VALUE product.
"Who are the risk takers and who the opportunists?"
Isn't it obvious?
"This bussiness model is about packaging community made software and getting it ready for prime time by adding value add "stuff" (training, QA, support and consulting)."
I think adding real value would be improving the product in such a way that it minimizes the need for training, support, and consulting.
It's like the American vs Japanese view of quality. Do you want to have a long warranty to fix your car when it breaks or do you want a car that doesn't break?
As you imply, there wouldn't be a Red Hat were it not for Linux. That's not to say the Red Hat doesn't contribute.
My point is just that Linux is not a great example of a business model for creating something new.
See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7DE1E39F936A25751C1A96F948260
As it turned out, Xerox waited too long to enforce its copyrights. Note that the Apple spokesperson never claimed that Apple had a license from Xerox - a more compelling argument than claiming that there was no relationship between the GUIs. From that I conclude that even Apple lawyers knew there was no such agreement.
"The obvious change in the new Windows Taskbar is that there are icons for non-running-applications. "
What's next, icons for applications you don't own?
Yes, but some Slasdotters weren't even potty-trained back then.
I think it's worth remembering that the primary motivation for creating a NeXTStep-like OS for the Mac was to "launder" Jobs' legacy.
NeXT was a big commercial failure so the price Apple had to pay to get Jobs back was to erase that failure by buying NeXT and basing OSX on it.
That was the understanding that Apple claims it had, but it's not what Xerox understood.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply saying whatever benefit there may be for that economic model it doesn't really apply to starting a project. Of course, I doubt that all the early implementors of Linux refused to make a profit.
So what is the venue for proving the government guilty of something?
Of course you didn't mention the key players - the early implementors of Linux. How many billions have they made?
I guess this "better economic model" doesn't apply to the risk-takers, just to the opportunists that feed on them.
It means they couldn't have listed or collected all communications because that wasn't technically possible. That doesn't mean they didn't listen to yours.
"Some people just want to believe this stuff so much they'll grasp at any old straw that agrees with their narrow view of the government."
That might apply to you as well. You don't think its possible that the government might spy on journalists? It's been proven to have happened with at least one administration (Nixon) in my lifetime.
Being 3rd in market cap doesn't make a company the third largest as you stated.
Actually GE is 12th. In any case, company size is not indication of value. Just ask General Motors (9th).