The fact that OLPC specifically targeted a $100 machine and couldn't achieve it should tell you a lot about the feasibility of a sub $100 computer.
Historically prices on PCs have come down, but the low end computers have started to reach a limit. A sub $100 laptop/netbook is about as practical as it was 5 years ago except that you can put more RAM in it now.
Where do you think the savings should be coming from? You still need an LCD screen, video hardware, audio hardware, processor, RAM, etc. And you can't buy a generic netbook case like you can for a desktop PC.
It was intended to be funny, but the only valid part would be that most of the general public never heard of Linux, Debian, Suse, etc. So the point was that because Google is well-known, Chrome might be considered a brand-new OS that has nothing to do with that unknown thing called Linux.
So I'm not suggesting that Linus would complain, just that he might have a reason to.
I though maybe you misspelled "Elmo". I had to google "emo" to find out what it meant. At my age I'd have to be a major poser to be one. Actually, Sesame Street was after may time as well but I know it from my daughters.
"Well, that's what they've always said, and Java does indeed work like that. There doesn't seem to be any great exercise of faith required, so we can probably forego the misapplied religious terminology in this particular case. Just saying, y'know?"
I think it's pretty well understood that Java didn't fully deliver the cross-platform ideal. Of course Sun's claim that Java programs could "run on any computer" was unquestionably false.
"That's an interesting point of view. Entirely untestable, of course, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion"
Of course your belief that Netscape died due to MS's efforts is entirely untestable as well.
"MS customisations would have broken the "compile once, run anywhere" concept that was at the heart of Java."
Yes, that's the chapter and verse of Sun's gospel, but the only reason Windows programmers might be interested in Java was for it's value as a language for Windows applications. MS's implementation was the best way to make COM calls.
Likewise those who were really interested in the "compile once, run any anywhere" concept weren't using Windows for development or deployment anyway.
I knew there was a reason why I didn't work as hard as I was supposed to in my Electromagnetics class - somehow I knew that fixed frequencies are strictly digital so no analog effects will interfere with them.
"When I was a manager, a few years ago, and conducted interviews, I found that the guys who wore suits were less qualified than those who didn't. To be honest, I may have had a bias against them for feeling like they had to "dress up" to impress me, when what i wanted was a competent technician, not a suit."
Between guys like you and the guys who would never hire someone who didn't show up to an interview in suit, we're screwed. The truth is that both types are acting illogically and we should avoid working for either of you.
"So you at least concede that Microsoft did in fact see Netscape as a threat and, presumably, that they did their best to destroy them?"
I do think MS saw them as a threat, but my main point is if they had kept their cool Netscape would still have died as a one-hit wonder.
Likewise if they had simply ignored Java rather than trying to customize it to perform better on Windows we wouldn't still be talking about it today. MS's initial embrace of Java legitimized it and they still got in trouble for extending it. It's like Sun made a basket and still drew the foul.
"Actually, I think the concern was more along the lines of "if the browser becomes an effective application platform, then control of the underlying operating system may become far less important". And you're right: Google sees that too."
Apple has had an effective application platform for many years and yet has a small percentage of the market. Surely the web browser is the least effective application platform available for general use.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that OLPC specifically targeted a $100 machine and couldn't achieve it should tell you a lot about the feasibility of a sub $100 computer.
Historically prices on PCs have come down, but the low end computers have started to reach a limit. A sub $100 laptop/netbook is about as practical as it was 5 years ago except that you can put more RAM in it now.
There's never going to be a $20 netbook even if your labor costs were zero.
Where do you think the savings should be coming from? You still need an LCD screen, video hardware, audio hardware, processor, RAM, etc. And you can't buy a generic netbook case like you can for a desktop PC.
Yes, I'm sure any limitations of machine translation can be solved by an infinite series of corrective perl scripts.
Then you'd be thinking wrong. As poor as my attempt at humor may have been, GNU/Chrome would even be less funny.
It was intended to be funny, but the only valid part would be that most of the general public never heard of Linux, Debian, Suse, etc. So the point was that because Google is well-known, Chrome might be considered a brand-new OS that has nothing to do with that unknown thing called Linux.
So I'm not suggesting that Linus would complain, just that he might have a reason to.
Yes, a lot of people are going to be "doing it wrong" and the result will be an uphill battle for Google.
It's Google's rebranding of Linux. Perhaps in a few years Linus will be demanding that it be called "Linux/Chrome".
much more knowledgeable folks on unemployment.
I though maybe you misspelled "Elmo". I had to google "emo" to find out what it meant. At my age I'd have to be a major poser to be one. Actually, Sesame Street was after may time as well but I know it from my daughters.
Did you miss this on the very first page of your link: "Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)" (emphasis mine).
As Darth would say "All too easy".
keyboard "touch" technology finally applied to the mouse.
No it's not the same, but I'll let you figure out why.
Yes, hate is as good a reason as anything.
Not in the US. You actually have to be found guilty of a crime to go to prison.
"I can't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow. "
Of course. Everything MS does to compete is illegal on Slashdot.
Now you're just getting silly.
Perhaps their day job is evaluating iPhone apps. The qualifications seem similar.
Around here people always complain about things they don't buy and actions they don't take.
"Well, that's what they've always said, and Java does indeed work like that. There doesn't seem to be any great exercise of faith required, so we can probably forego the misapplied religious terminology in this particular case. Just saying, y'know?"
I think it's pretty well understood that Java didn't fully deliver the cross-platform ideal. Of course Sun's claim that Java programs could "run on any computer" was unquestionably false.
"That's an interesting point of view. Entirely untestable, of course, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion"
Of course your belief that Netscape died due to MS's efforts is entirely untestable as well.
"MS customisations would have broken the "compile once, run anywhere" concept that was at the heart of Java."
Yes, that's the chapter and verse of Sun's gospel, but the only reason Windows programmers might be interested in Java was for it's value as a language for Windows applications. MS's implementation was the best way to make COM calls.
Likewise those who were really interested in the "compile once, run any anywhere" concept weren't using Windows for development or deployment anyway.
All good and fine but not evidence that the non-phone devices will be obsolete or replaced.
I knew there was a reason why I didn't work as hard as I was supposed to in my Electromagnetics class - somehow I knew that fixed frequencies are strictly digital so no analog effects will interfere with them.
"When I was a manager, a few years ago, and conducted interviews, I found that the guys who wore suits were less qualified than those who didn't. To be honest, I may have had a bias against them for feeling like they had to "dress up" to impress me, when what i wanted was a competent technician, not a suit."
Between guys like you and the guys who would never hire someone who didn't show up to an interview in suit, we're screwed. The truth is that both types are acting illogically and we should avoid working for either of you.
"So you at least concede that Microsoft did in fact see Netscape as a threat and, presumably, that they did their best to destroy them?"
I do think MS saw them as a threat, but my main point is if they had kept their cool Netscape would still have died as a one-hit wonder.
Likewise if they had simply ignored Java rather than trying to customize it to perform better on Windows we wouldn't still be talking about it today. MS's initial embrace of Java legitimized it and they still got in trouble for extending it. It's like Sun made a basket and still drew the foul.
"Actually, I think the concern was more along the lines of "if the browser becomes an effective application platform, then control of the underlying operating system may become far less important". And you're right: Google sees that too."
Apple has had an effective application platform for many years and yet has a small percentage of the market. Surely the web browser is the least effective application platform available for general use.