Apple "computer" introductions are now a separate matter. Think about it. In the past, when Apple was (basically) the sole PPC user, they were responsible for everything - of all the PC vendors (HP, Dell et al) they were the only ones designing their own system chipset. Then, it was actually meaningful to introduce such things at major events because there was no visibility otherwise. Now - it's up to Intel, and Intel is generally responsible for and publishes the underlying technology roadmap.
You want to know Apple's "computer" roadmap? Look at Intel's published roadmap. When Intel introduced the Core Duo, you knew more or less Apple was going to introduce Core Duo machines soon after. Same for Core 2 Duo. When Santa Rosa shows up in April, you also know new MB(P)s based on that will show up.
CPU "refreshes" simply aren't important enough to warrant a keynote introduction any more - the intel imac introductions etc were different and important and warranted a macworld keynote introduction because those were the *first* intel macs. all future macs, unless they introduce something new and interesting (or if apple's product lineup has seriously run dry) are unlikely to warrant any further keynote introductions. There's absolutely nothing to stop the Apple.com home page being updated in the future with a "quiet" introduction of octo-core Mac Pros.
But right now - and I think you're seriously underestimating the significance of the iPhone introduction on the players of the phone industry - the iPhone is *it*. It really is what is worth talking about right now.
No matter what their production output is I do not believe the apple stores will be able to keep it in stock. They've staked out the high ground in terms of phone functionality, and all the other players are now left with having to basically compete on price, and higher-cost western producers - that means Motorola and Nokia et al - are NOT going to be able to compete in that space, squeezed between Apple on the top and the upcoming Chinese manufacturers at the bottom. This is a serious disaster for Nokia which has been trying for ages to become a "new computing platform" (didn't they ban their employees from calling their devices "phones"?).
the "fundamental unifying characteristic" of all phones so far has been the keypad, and Apple just decided they weren't going to play there. Considering the careful patent protection apple must have put in place, any alternative implementation of a non-keypad interface must end up being klunky as hell, and there's going to be simply no way for anybody else (and this is going to include Microsoft) to compete (bar some amazing genius in their staff who comes up with a new UI idea completely out of left field... but such a genius is probably going to want to work for Apple instead, anyway).
Everybody kept saying "well MS never gets anything right until version 3.0 anyways" when they were comparing the Zune with the iPod. Well, Zune 3.0 can be the perfect MP3 player, but it won't matter, because this is the end of the "plain MP3 player" market dominance. sure they'll still continue to be sold, but the analysts who were talking about iPod sales levelling off or plunging in 2007 were, in fact, correct - but not because it's being taken over by external competition. I've dealt with windows mobile phones. they do not compare in any way with the UI of the iPhone.
The only problem with the iPhone I can think of is basically personal safety. Think of the mugging potential.
'does not permit you to back up your media usage rights (previously known as licenses).'
Until all storage is solid state(*) and nothing is hard-disk based, locking play rights to one device is going to lead to some seriously unhappy people.
would disagree, sorry. My experiences with windows desktops have been nothing but trouble, due to viruses, security issues, installation problems, inconsistent software from many competing vendors, fundamental design flaws, lack of documentation and support when problems need to be fixed, driver issues, and more besides
Long term. All these things you're pointing out are problems that show up long term... *after* you've already paid for it and are stuck with it.
But for some newbie getting a new system... here on this side you've got oh, this nice shiny happy thing with big flashy buttons and a "start" button all those years of marketing and indoctrination via school computers has made you familiar with.
On the other side there's something... quite alien, even if long term it'll give you less headaches(*). its not too surprising people gravitate to windows...
(*): and this is not necessarily the case - people dont buy machines to "run" them, they buy them to do things. An inability to run the apps your friends do, etc is as real a problem as, and much more immediate a problem during the moment of purchase, than a long term issues - and securitywise, automatic updates are making things pretty straightforward. and like you said, its also not the case linux doesn't need "maintenance" whether security or otherwise.
"historically". what you're mentioning only works if the hardware supports it, i.e. vanderpool tech which only got introduced by Intel around the last 2 chips.
Well, I may be a moron, but *you* sir, Mr. Anonymous Coward, are an asshole.
all the other guys say games, but even though i don't play games (not since Starcraft:-), I want dual boot. it doesn't mean i want it over and above all else (I *really* want VMware for Mac... i've been sending them mail:-). why?
- this is a multiplatform world. I spend 80% of my time in OS X (and maybe 15% in various editions of linux when I can't ssh -X in with X11.app running) but every now and then i have to work on windows things. having "my own windows PC" I bring around therefore becomes useful (i'm not going to carry TWO laptops around).
- historically virtual PCs have taken a major performance knock. so in part it is a "learned instinct", in that "if i'm going to have to run windows on a Mac booting off it is better because emulation is going to be damned slow". it's possible the core duo is fast enough that i wouldn't feel it at all, but even if you don't feel it there'll necessarily be some hit. a situation that requires me to be in windows might very well be one that requires me to be in windows *with as much performance as i can have*. not to mention as of now VMware has no announcements re: releasing Workstation for Mac, and with VirtualPC's maker (connectix) being bought out by MS, there is NO idea when/where/if MS will be releasing a VirtualPC for intel macs. To get Windows on a Mac at all the only solution might be to dual-boot.
- the least "rational"/reasonable reason would be that, well, that would be another point of superiority over run-of-the-mill PCs. "you can do windows? well we can do that too! can YOU boot into OS X?"... of course, unless they catch Maxxus the answer to that is probably "yes", even if delayed a bit after every OS X release:-)
no it's completely different. they posted the X-prize first in order to stimulate entrants etc.; here, Apple is rewarding the people who contributed *with no expectation of personal gain* (well, beyond things like satisfaction and if they use the code themselves), which is more true to the spirit of the GPL, as a complete surprise. this is much more of a real reward, and not some mercenary kind of thing.
Actually. Considering the installed base of PPC Macs, it's likely that universal binaries are going to be the standard release from here on out - *universal* binaries, not "intel-only" binaries. So this will really give Apple a lot of freedom to "switch back" from a technical perspective.
Of course, considering what must have happened in the background when Apple did the switch - I've heard rumours IBM found out about the switch the same as all of us from the announcement at WWDC - whether IBM will be interested in Apple's business again in the future is a separate matter. It's entirely possible the only G5s Apple has are ones being delivered under the pre-WWDC contracts and that the iMac G5 is being retired so soon not only because they WANT to switch over to Intel ASAP, but because they don't have the G5s to put in 'em. IBM's probably been busy retooling the fabs to make Cells for Sony et al and won't be switching them back anytime soon...
One of the reasons for the prevalence of Windows was piracy. MS execs have been quoted on record as saying things like how they'd prefer pirated MS software to be used rather than competitors' software - because that prevents any competitor from getting strong enough to ever challenge MS. They can always come in and squeeze for more money later (as is the case now w.r.t. XP activation).
MS, having taken advantag of this, is clearly very aware as to whether anyone else is going to try it on them. Hence, their *very* disproportionate response when some Japanese OEM wanted to bundle BeOS with their PCs, and when J L Gassee offered BeOS *free* to any OEM who wanted to adopt it. MS wouldn't let it - they wouldn't even risk anyone getting a toehold in the field.
Consider MacOS.
It was never really a problem when it only ran on PPC. But now it's coming on to x86, it can become an alternative. To Windows. Whether or not users pay money for it or not, MS does NOT want any other OS out there. FreeBSD was - no offence intended, but this is the truth w.r.t. desktop penetration - a sideshow, Linux's model is too strong to challenge (but they're doing it anyway) and they're throwing in whatever spanners they can to slow it down.
But MS has leverage on Apple.
Office.
Apple must know that - perhaps not yet, perhaps never - they are NOT ready to "take on" MS in the OS field. And they need Office. If MS Office did not exist for MacOS - forget the alternative word processors, spreadsheets, etc. - Apple will take the kind of hit that may well literally force them into becoming a consumer electronics company for real, and sell only iPods. The iPod is a hit but it's not yet the majority of Apple's revenues.
An easily piratable Mac OS, leaving aside the loss in revenues (which is debatable - are the kind of people who are willing to pay for a Mac *really* going to go buy a fugly Dell and install OS X on it?), is offensive to MS to a lethal (lethal to Apple!) degree.
Hence - non-piratable OS X.
It will be very interesting to see the extent of the DRM protection. E.g., if it becomes clear that the DRM prevents OS X from running on non-Apple hardware, but NOT multiple Apple machines (i.e. there's no enforcement to test/check that "one licensed copy of OS X per Mac" vs. someone being able to buy a non-"family pack" OS X and installing it onto as many Mac Intels as he/she likes), then it looks like evidence this is a "let's not piss off Microsoft" move to me.
A company puts out it's website. I *save* it with the "File-> Save As..." option in my menu.
Am I infringing anything?
Some time later my friend tells me he can't get that page. I zip the file I saved up and mail it to him.
Am I infringing anything?
Microsoft wrote the web browser that has the File-> Save As... function. They have obviously enabled me to help infringe these guy's property, without which I wouldn't be able to have done it (I don't know how to write a web browser). Maybe these guys should queue up with the other guys suing MS for money.
anyways, i would say, this is *precisely* the reason there needs to be a counterweight/balance to the US. When there's an alternative, everybody's better behaved. The problem is there isn't one yet, and how to have one would be difficult - Europe is still seriously fragmented, and Russia or China aren't really places where "the people" (that stand the risks of dying/suffering) have control over the government (which can hide in bunkers).
Re:I smell a rat! and It'll be on budget for 1.5M
on
Sci-Fi on the Cheap
·
· Score: 1
So the dinosaurs and aliens start fighting
you know. i hate to say this (seeing's how I'm well past my teens).
but DAMN that would be cool:-)
hahaha
I can't be the only one, come on, hands up all those who'd want a movie/series where you get dinosaurs and aliens at war!!!
Which episode? "Simpsodoki: Legend of the Overfiend", where Lisa gets violently tentacle-raped by Principal Skinner (who turns out to be a hideous monster from another dimension)?
erm eyes darting left and right where do I get a copy of that?
actually, when I got to use a tablet PC (via my ex-employer), I really liked just sitting down at the couch with it and reading e.g. *cough* slashdot during, say, commercials between programs (or even with the TV off:-). I definitely don't do graphic design (I can't draw:-).
it's not just useful when you're going to *input* info, but also when you're just referring to stuff without any need to type anything in response.
it's much easier to wield when there's no keyboard in the way - nice to just have a "video slate" where you can drag-drop links onto firefox tabs:-)
One thing, though - I've tried quite a lot of tablet PCs, but I find that the *only* one's i've really liked were those with actual touchscreens, and not the wacom-tablet-like RF-sensing screens. And in my experience that means only Panasonic tablet PCs. I don't know about screen longetivity where you actually have to press the stylus onto it etc., but the *feel* is just... wrong when it's not a physical-pressure-touchscreen and one of those RF-sensing types.
I don't think too many people here have actually in fact read John Schwartz's blog.
Extracted from his blog (his words):
Red Hat does not equal linux, and linux is not evil. But, linux in the enterprise datacenter (that is, not your basement or startup or dorm room or gamebox) does equal Red Hat - and competing against a company is what we do for a living
i think he might be trying to say that by choosing components that don't require active cooling (i.e. run cooler) you're going to have a longer lifespan for the machine. the tradeoff in performance might be worth that?
but establishing relationships with key members (or hiring them) does. You're right that the pool of talented kernel hackers is limited, but that's why you turn some of your own workforce into essentially paid kernel hackers. It seems to work for IBM, as they have pushed a lot of innovation into Linux from the "outside" by first becoming an active membe
noted. but ibm's commitments have been more... peripheral. and i just have the impression most of their commitment in terms of actual-$$$-and-developers-put-in is geared towards the POWER architecture than anything else, which basically benefits, by far more than any collateral benefit to others, themselves.
overall, I'd prefer the Sun approach (much less involvement) than the HP one (trying to talk the talk but then when push comes to shove... Bruce Perens leaves). Sun's approach in this respect is even more *honest*, i'd think (believe it or not). Much of Sun's flip-flopping is, i believe, genuine confusion/indecision. I don't envy their position, where for a long time the first thing that comes to mind for many people (this included me) when the idea "I want a UNIX box" was "Sun", most people now think "linux". there's not a wide range of options for Sun, there....
Are you trying to spread FUD? Sure sounds like it. Guess what?
"you're either with us or against us", eh?
Redmond's power is nothing compared to an increasingly annoyed world-wide IT industry. If they think they can scare people away from Linux using bogus legal threats and wrangling international trade bodies, they are the ones with the cluestick coming -- except it will be aimed directly at the jugular of their revenue stream.
i think you're underestimating the effectiveness of the legal weapon. your argument is essentially "the best technology will win", and everytime I make an argument effectively meaning that, this ex-boss of mine I keep in contact with always counters with "remember the Alpha!".
The point is not to abandon R&D but to avoid creating your own island in the process of re-inventing wheels. Of course IBM only puts real investment into that which benefits themselves. That's what should happen!
the point (to me) is that it appears to me IBM has been careful to commit resources to those things that help themselves (sure), but which also don't help other people very much (POWER optimizations). *If* IBM specifically did everything that "helps linux", *including* improving the ability of major competitors, I'd genuinely be impressed (and surprised). they've not done anything that strikes me as helping their competitors more than they help themselves (even where there's a net gain).
In terms of R&D, IMHO for Sun, the features they already have they have already paid for - the costs are sunk costs. it's not a question of "future R&D costs". If they have it and competitors don't - "Good for Sun". If they have it and competitors have it because they've also given it out - "Bad for Sun".
it's ironic that the point about "reinventing the wheel" is raised because linux IS, in a very real sense, reinventing the wheel in terms of OS development. The real advancement of linux has so far appeared to be more it's developmental model than the OS itself (i can't remember the name, who was that OS architect featured right here on slashdot who commented before that systems architecture development seems to have stopped?).
if any company had decided (in a parallel universe where linux never happened) "we will write from scratch an OS that will be ", people will reply... "what a waste of money! why don't you use FreeBSD?"
part of the speed of the development of linux is IMHO not just the GPL (which guarantees sharing) is that a lot of what it does is "treaded ground" - there are no/few surprises in terms of what needs to be done because what is being done has been done before.
The point that I find Sun is at, is th
Re:What day of the week is it?
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Let the community massage your improvements to Linux instead of having to rework, test, and maintain your own codebase.
This sounds like hand-waving. It's been pointed out before that submitting lots of code "into the community" is no guarantee it'll be vetted properly. The pool of genuinely talented linux hackers is large, but not infinite. And the subset of this that is likely to decide "hell this is a cool project i'm gonna go work on it" is often zero for many projects (go look at the effectively abandoned projects all over).
Sun has their own pool of engineers, and plenty of them are *very* good. If they have their own resources in terms of engineering talent, you can't possibly blame them for wanting to use it on their 'own' product? it guarantees x number of eyeballs looking at it in a directed way and with it being literally their "day job".
"Opening it to the community" only means that the ones who are interested in it and are capable of doing it (both in terms of talent and time) will work on it. there's plenty of things that ought to be done in linux that have not yet been done....
Less legal hastle and licensing costs, as mentioned, than opening up all of Solaris. Evidently Sun didn't have full rights to all the code, so they had to buy them up first
The battle against SCO may well have given the wrong impression considering their sheer incompetence and general rubbish-osity, but if you don't think things are being cooked up in Redmond right now, a cluestick awaits your head.
The warning shots have already been fired - Ballmer's running around telling Asian governments there's patent issues with Linux - and the *real* battles (MS patent infringement claims against Linux) have yet to be fought. Software patents are the key battle to be fought - if Europe adopts US-style software patents, if the global system evolves even more towards a system that favours large corporations vs individual groups/community hackers, well, you know who the biggest software company out there is?
PR. Switching entirely to Linux would have given Sun an enormous boost in respect and confidence -- especially among geeks but also among investors concerned about Sun's bottom line. All that independent R&D costs big bucks. And, after all, Linux is now a media / wall street darling.
I'm sure Sun has their reasons, but I'd imagine they are fairly short term.
I can't believe you mention wall street and then complain about "short term". The purported boost would be quite worthless for Sun. The minute they announce anything remotely close to sounding like they're abandoning Solaris, they will haemorrhage customers as fast as... HP losing VMS/Alpha customers. Sun's apparently picking up quite a lot of business from this group, they're perfectly aware of what happens when your installed base sees you jumping ship.
If they did it, there'd be a major splash of publicity, sure. That's definitely gonna pay the bills. (it's not even clear it'd be *positive* publicity. "Sun Surrenders" is probably what plenty of analysts etc. will plunk on their front pages).
There might be a tiny spike in the share price that would be wiped out by the downward spiral pretty quickly.
Independent R&D costs big bucks? Hell yeah. Should I presume you're a big "oh-we-used-to-say-we-don't-do-ANY-R&D-which-is-wh y-we're-gonna-kill-all-those-who-do" Dell fanboy? IBM's often quoted as a major friend-of-OSS, but any real-$$ investments they have made are targeted towards things that are beneficial to themselves and/or hurtful to enemies (e.g. Eclipse). I don't see them contributing to improve linux performance on Itaniums, for example.
There's no fundamental difference between that and Sun coughing up the $$ into their own targets on their own platform.
You'll note IBM hasn't GPL-ed AIX either and decided to support linux exclusively.
MSFT and SUNW have plausible deniability in that they can claim the payments were for SCOX licenses.
I'm thinking it's even better than that - can't they turn around and demand their money back once the SCO case against IBM collapses, by saying "we paid you this much $$ because you said you owned the licensing rights, now it turns out you don't, i want my money back"?
so for MS (and Sun?) it can turn out to be a fairly cost-free way to try and slow down linux adoption....
Actually, it kinda sticks in my craw a bit that Sun would stoop to "license" UNIX rights from a company like SCO (makes me really think that they must be doing it to try to help SCO slow linux down), considering the lineage Sun's Solaris has.
the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.
I think it's important to be clear what "switching to x86" actually means.
Are we talking about Apple selling shrinkwrapped copies of "Mac OS X x86 Edition!!!" in stores, shopping it to manufacturers/OEMs, etc. etc.?
*OR* are we talking about Apple shipping - in their own housings, their own designed motherboards etc. etc. something that uses an AMD64/Opteron inside?
If it's the latter, then Apple would still have "total control".
I'm thinking that if it happens, it'll be Apple-ships-their-own-x86 hardware, not only because of the "total control" aspect, but also because they'll be able to control pricing (I'd personally forget the idea of super-cheap Macs; it's a conscious decision by them not to compete in that space, I believe. Where margins are low you have to make up for it in volume which carries it's own set of costs/difficulties), and, most importantly, offering shrinkwrapped "can install on any x86 machine" Mac OS X would be a total declaration of war against Microsoft.
Even a company that is not beholden to MS would be chary of doing something like that, and Apple absolutely needs Microsoft Office on their platform.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a trend likely to continue.
... but such a genius is probably going to want to work for Apple instead, anyway).
Apple "computer" introductions are now a separate matter. Think about it. In the past, when Apple was (basically) the sole PPC user, they were responsible for everything - of all the PC vendors (HP, Dell et al) they were the only ones designing their own system chipset. Then, it was actually meaningful to introduce such things at major events because there was no visibility otherwise. Now - it's up to Intel, and Intel is generally responsible for and publishes the underlying technology roadmap.
You want to know Apple's "computer" roadmap? Look at Intel's published roadmap. When Intel introduced the Core Duo, you knew more or less Apple was going to introduce Core Duo machines soon after. Same for Core 2 Duo. When Santa Rosa shows up in April, you also know new MB(P)s based on that will show up.
CPU "refreshes" simply aren't important enough to warrant a keynote introduction any more - the intel imac introductions etc were different and important and warranted a macworld keynote introduction because those were the *first* intel macs. all future macs, unless they introduce something new and interesting (or if apple's product lineup has seriously run dry) are unlikely to warrant any further keynote introductions. There's absolutely nothing to stop the Apple.com home page being updated in the future with a "quiet" introduction of octo-core Mac Pros.
But right now - and I think you're seriously underestimating the significance of the iPhone introduction on the players of the phone industry - the iPhone is *it*. It really is what is worth talking about right now.
No matter what their production output is I do not believe the apple stores will be able to keep it in stock. They've staked out the high ground in terms of phone functionality, and all the other players are now left with having to basically compete on price, and higher-cost western producers - that means Motorola and Nokia et al - are NOT going to be able to compete in that space, squeezed between Apple on the top and the upcoming Chinese manufacturers at the bottom. This is a serious disaster for Nokia which has been trying for ages to become a "new computing platform" (didn't they ban their employees from calling their devices "phones"?).
the "fundamental unifying characteristic" of all phones so far has been the keypad, and Apple just decided they weren't going to play there. Considering the careful patent protection apple must have put in place, any alternative implementation of a non-keypad interface must end up being klunky as hell, and there's going to be simply no way for anybody else (and this is going to include Microsoft) to compete (bar some amazing genius in their staff who comes up with a new UI idea completely out of left field
Everybody kept saying "well MS never gets anything right until version 3.0 anyways" when they were comparing the Zune with the iPod. Well, Zune 3.0 can be the perfect MP3 player, but it won't matter, because this is the end of the "plain MP3 player" market dominance. sure they'll still continue to be sold, but the analysts who were talking about iPod sales levelling off or plunging in 2007 were, in fact, correct - but not because it's being taken over by external competition. I've dealt with windows mobile phones. they do not compare in any way with the UI of the iPhone.
The only problem with the iPhone I can think of is basically personal safety. Think of the mugging potential.
'does not permit you to back up your media usage rights (previously known as licenses).'
Until all storage is solid state(*) and nothing is hard-disk based, locking play rights to one device is going to lead to some seriously unhappy people.
(*: and, not necessarily even then)
live by the sword, die by the sword.
in any case, this was the last option for creative anyway. if they lose this case, it's over for their MP3 players.
would disagree, sorry. My experiences with windows desktops have been nothing but trouble, due to viruses, security issues, installation problems, inconsistent software from many competing vendors, fundamental design flaws, lack of documentation and support when problems need to be fixed, driver issues, and more besides
Long term. All these things you're pointing out are problems that show up long term... *after* you've already paid for it and are stuck with it.
But for some newbie getting a new system... here on this side you've got oh, this nice shiny happy thing with big flashy buttons and a "start" button all those years of marketing and indoctrination via school computers has made you familiar with.
On the other side there's something... quite alien, even if long term it'll give you less headaches(*). its not too surprising people gravitate to windows...
(*): and this is not necessarily the case - people dont buy machines to "run" them, they buy them to do things. An inability to run the apps your friends do, etc is as real a problem as, and much more immediate a problem during the moment of purchase, than a long term issues - and securitywise, automatic updates are making things pretty straightforward. and like you said, its also not the case linux doesn't need "maintenance" whether security or otherwise.
"historically". what you're mentioning only works if the hardware supports it, i.e. vanderpool tech which only got introduced by Intel around the last 2 chips.
Well, I may be a moron, but *you* sir, Mr. Anonymous Coward, are an asshole.
all the other guys say games, but even though i don't play games (not since Starcraft :-), I want dual boot. it doesn't mean i want it over and above all else (I *really* want VMware for Mac... i've been sending them mail :-). why?
... of course, unless they catch Maxxus the answer to that is probably "yes", even if delayed a bit after every OS X release :-)
- this is a multiplatform world. I spend 80% of my time in OS X (and maybe 15% in various editions of linux when I can't ssh -X in with X11.app running) but every now and then i have to work on windows things. having "my own windows PC" I bring around therefore becomes useful (i'm not going to carry TWO laptops around).
- historically virtual PCs have taken a major performance knock. so in part it is a "learned instinct", in that "if i'm going to have to run windows on a Mac booting off it is better because emulation is going to be damned slow". it's possible the core duo is fast enough that i wouldn't feel it at all, but even if you don't feel it there'll necessarily be some hit. a situation that requires me to be in windows might very well be one that requires me to be in windows *with as much performance as i can have*. not to mention as of now VMware has no announcements re: releasing Workstation for Mac, and with VirtualPC's maker (connectix) being bought out by MS, there is NO idea when/where/if MS will be releasing a VirtualPC for intel macs. To get Windows on a Mac at all the only solution might be to dual-boot.
- the least "rational"/reasonable reason would be that, well, that would be another point of superiority over run-of-the-mill PCs. "you can do windows? well we can do that too! can YOU boot into OS X?"
no it's completely different. they posted the X-prize first in order to stimulate entrants etc.; here, Apple is rewarding the people who contributed *with no expectation of personal gain* (well, beyond things like satisfaction and if they use the code themselves), which is more true to the spirit of the GPL, as a complete surprise. this is much more of a real reward, and not some mercenary kind of thing.
Actually. Considering the installed base of PPC Macs, it's likely that universal binaries are going to be the standard release from here on out - *universal* binaries, not "intel-only" binaries. So this will really give Apple a lot of freedom to "switch back" from a technical perspective.
Of course, considering what must have happened in the background when Apple did the switch - I've heard rumours IBM found out about the switch the same as all of us from the announcement at WWDC - whether IBM will be interested in Apple's business again in the future is a separate matter. It's entirely possible the only G5s Apple has are ones being delivered under the pre-WWDC contracts and that the iMac G5 is being retired so soon not only because they WANT to switch over to Intel ASAP, but because they don't have the G5s to put in 'em. IBM's probably been busy retooling the fabs to make Cells for Sony et al and won't be switching them back anytime soon...
*putting tinfoil hat on*
One of the reasons for the prevalence of Windows was piracy. MS execs have been quoted on record as saying things like how they'd prefer pirated MS software to be used rather than competitors' software - because that prevents any competitor from getting strong enough to ever challenge MS. They can always come in and squeeze for more money later (as is the case now w.r.t. XP activation).
MS, having taken advantag of this, is clearly very aware as to whether anyone else is going to try it on them. Hence, their *very* disproportionate response when some Japanese OEM wanted to bundle BeOS with their PCs, and when J L Gassee offered BeOS *free* to any OEM who wanted to adopt it. MS wouldn't let it - they wouldn't even risk anyone getting a toehold in the field.
Consider MacOS.
It was never really a problem when it only ran on PPC. But now it's coming on to x86, it can become an alternative. To Windows. Whether or not users pay money for it or not, MS does NOT want any other OS out there. FreeBSD was - no offence intended, but this is the truth w.r.t. desktop penetration - a sideshow, Linux's model is too strong to challenge (but they're doing it anyway) and they're throwing in whatever spanners they can to slow it down.
But MS has leverage on Apple.
Office.
Apple must know that - perhaps not yet, perhaps never - they are NOT ready to "take on" MS in the OS field. And they need Office. If MS Office did not exist for MacOS - forget the alternative word processors, spreadsheets, etc. - Apple will take the kind of hit that may well literally force them into becoming a consumer electronics company for real, and sell only iPods. The iPod is a hit but it's not yet the majority of Apple's revenues.
An easily piratable Mac OS, leaving aside the loss in revenues (which is debatable - are the kind of people who are willing to pay for a Mac *really* going to go buy a fugly Dell and install OS X on it?), is offensive to MS to a lethal (lethal to Apple!) degree.
Hence - non-piratable OS X.
It will be very interesting to see the extent of the DRM protection. E.g., if it becomes clear that the DRM prevents OS X from running on non-Apple hardware, but NOT multiple Apple machines (i.e. there's no enforcement to test/check that "one licensed copy of OS X per Mac" vs. someone being able to buy a non-"family pack" OS X and installing it onto as many Mac Intels as he/she likes), then it looks like evidence this is a "let's not piss off Microsoft" move to me.
A company puts out it's website. I *save* it with the "File-> Save As..." option in my menu.
Am I infringing anything?
Some time later my friend tells me he can't get that page. I zip the file I saved up and mail it to him.
Am I infringing anything?
Microsoft wrote the web browser that has the File-> Save As... function. They have obviously enabled me to help infringe these guy's property, without which I wouldn't be able to have done it (I don't know how to write a web browser). Maybe these guys should queue up with the other guys suing MS for money.
I'm adding you to my friends list.
anyways, i would say, this is *precisely* the reason there needs to be a counterweight/balance to the US. When there's an alternative, everybody's better behaved. The problem is there isn't one yet, and how to have one would be difficult - Europe is still seriously fragmented, and Russia or China aren't really places where "the people" (that stand the risks of dying/suffering) have control over the government (which can hide in bunkers).
So the dinosaurs and aliens start fighting
:-)
you know. i hate to say this (seeing's how I'm well past my teens).
but DAMN that would be cool
hahaha
I can't be the only one, come on, hands up all those who'd want a movie/series where you get dinosaurs and aliens at war!!!
Which episode? "Simpsodoki: Legend of the Overfiend", where Lisa gets violently tentacle-raped by Principal Skinner (who turns out to be a hideous monster from another dimension)?
erm eyes darting left and right where do I get a copy of that?
actually, when I got to use a tablet PC (via my ex-employer), I really liked just sitting down at the couch with it and reading e.g. *cough* slashdot during, say, commercials between programs (or even with the TV off :-). I definitely don't do graphic design (I can't draw :-).
:-)
... wrong when it's not a physical-pressure-touchscreen and one of those RF-sensing types.
it's not just useful when you're going to *input* info, but also when you're just referring to stuff without any need to type anything in response.
it's much easier to wield when there's no keyboard in the way - nice to just have a "video slate" where you can drag-drop links onto firefox tabs
One thing, though - I've tried quite a lot of tablet PCs, but I find that the *only* one's i've really liked were those with actual touchscreens, and not the wacom-tablet-like RF-sensing screens. And in my experience that means only Panasonic tablet PCs. I don't know about screen longetivity where you actually have to press the stylus onto it etc., but the *feel* is just
a custom graphics driver written overnight
:-)
a graphics driver overnight? we're talking ring-0, will-bring-down-the-system? that's some mad skillz, man
the actual extract came from the link *to* the URL posted above; you can grep for it at the main page
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan
I don't think too many people here have actually in fact read John Schwartz's blog.
Extracted from his blog (his words):
Red Hat does not equal linux, and linux is not evil. But, linux in the enterprise datacenter (that is, not your basement or startup or dorm room or gamebox) does equal Red Hat - and competing against a company is what we do for a living
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/2004072
i think he might be trying to say that by choosing components that don't require active cooling (i.e. run cooler) you're going to have a longer lifespan for the machine. the tradeoff in performance might be worth that?
but establishing relationships with key members (or hiring them) does. You're right that the pool of talented kernel hackers is limited, but that's why you turn some of your own workforce into essentially paid kernel hackers. It seems to work for IBM, as they have pushed a lot of innovation into Linux from the "outside" by first becoming an active membe
.
... "what a waste of money! why don't you use FreeBSD?"
noted. but ibm's commitments have been more... peripheral. and i just have the impression most of their commitment in terms of actual-$$$-and-developers-put-in is geared towards the POWER architecture than anything else, which basically benefits, by far more than any collateral benefit to others, themselves.
overall, I'd prefer the Sun approach (much less involvement) than the HP one (trying to talk the talk but then when push comes to shove... Bruce Perens leaves). Sun's approach in this respect is even more *honest*, i'd think (believe it or not). Much of Sun's flip-flopping is, i believe, genuine confusion/indecision. I don't envy their position, where for a long time the first thing that comes to mind for many people (this included me) when the idea "I want a UNIX box" was "Sun", most people now think "linux". there's not a wide range of options for Sun, there...
Are you trying to spread FUD? Sure sounds like it. Guess what?
"you're either with us or against us", eh?
Redmond's power is nothing compared to an increasingly annoyed world-wide IT industry. If they think they can scare people away from Linux using bogus legal threats and wrangling international trade bodies, they are the ones with the cluestick coming -- except it will be aimed directly at the jugular of their revenue stream.
i think you're underestimating the effectiveness of the legal weapon. your argument is essentially "the best technology will win", and everytime I make an argument effectively meaning that, this ex-boss of mine I keep in contact with always counters with "remember the Alpha!".
The point is not to abandon R&D but to avoid creating your own island in the process of re-inventing wheels. Of course IBM only puts real investment into that which benefits themselves. That's what should happen!
the point (to me) is that it appears to me IBM has been careful to commit resources to those things that help themselves (sure), but which also don't help other people very much (POWER optimizations). *If* IBM specifically did everything that "helps linux", *including* improving the ability of major competitors, I'd genuinely be impressed (and surprised). they've not done anything that strikes me as helping their competitors more than they help themselves (even where there's a net gain).
In terms of R&D, IMHO for Sun, the features they already have they have already paid for - the costs are sunk costs. it's not a question of "future R&D costs". If they have it and competitors don't - "Good for Sun". If they have it and competitors have it because they've also given it out - "Bad for Sun".
it's ironic that the point about "reinventing the wheel" is raised because linux IS, in a very real sense, reinventing the wheel in terms of OS development. The real advancement of linux has so far appeared to be more it's developmental model than the OS itself (i can't remember the name, who was that OS architect featured right here on slashdot who commented before that systems architecture development seems to have stopped?).
if any company had decided (in a parallel universe where linux never happened) "we will write from scratch an OS that will be ", people will reply
part of the speed of the development of linux is IMHO not just the GPL (which guarantees sharing) is that a lot of what it does is "treaded ground" - there are no/few surprises in terms of what needs to be done because what is being done has been done before.
The point that I find Sun is at, is th
Let the community massage your improvements to Linux instead of having to rework, test, and maintain your own codebase.
.
This sounds like hand-waving. It's been pointed out before that submitting lots of code "into the community" is no guarantee it'll be vetted properly. The pool of genuinely talented linux hackers is large, but not infinite. And the subset of this that is likely to decide "hell this is a cool project i'm gonna go work on it" is often zero for many projects (go look at the effectively abandoned projects all over).
Sun has their own pool of engineers, and plenty of them are *very* good. If they have their own resources in terms of engineering talent, you can't possibly blame them for wanting to use it on their 'own' product? it guarantees x number of eyeballs looking at it in a directed way and with it being literally their "day job".
"Opening it to the community" only means that the ones who are interested in it and are capable of doing it (both in terms of talent and time) will work on it. there's plenty of things that ought to be done in linux that have not yet been done...
Less legal hastle and licensing costs, as mentioned, than opening up all of Solaris. Evidently Sun didn't have full rights to all the code, so they had to buy them up first
The battle against SCO may well have given the wrong impression considering their sheer incompetence and general rubbish-osity, but if you don't think things are being cooked up in Redmond right now, a cluestick awaits your head.
The warning shots have already been fired - Ballmer's running around telling Asian governments there's patent issues with Linux - and the *real* battles (MS patent infringement claims against Linux) have yet to be fought. Software patents are the key battle to be fought - if Europe adopts US-style software patents, if the global system evolves even more towards a system that favours large corporations vs individual groups/community hackers, well, you know who the biggest software company out there is?
PR. Switching entirely to Linux would have given Sun an enormous boost in respect and confidence -- especially among geeks but also among investors concerned about Sun's bottom line. All that independent R&D costs big bucks. And, after all, Linux is now a media / wall street darling.
I'm sure Sun has their reasons, but I'd imagine they are fairly short term.
I can't believe you mention wall street and then complain about "short term". The purported boost would be quite worthless for Sun. The minute they announce anything remotely close to sounding like they're abandoning Solaris, they will haemorrhage customers as fast as... HP losing VMS/Alpha customers. Sun's apparently picking up quite a lot of business from this group, they're perfectly aware of what happens when your installed base sees you jumping ship.
If they did it, there'd be a major splash of publicity, sure. That's definitely gonna pay the bills. (it's not even clear it'd be *positive* publicity. "Sun Surrenders" is probably what plenty of analysts etc. will plunk on their front pages).
There might be a tiny spike in the share price that would be wiped out by the downward spiral pretty quickly.
Independent R&D costs big bucks? Hell yeah. Should I presume you're a big "oh-we-used-to-say-we-don't-do-ANY-R&D-which-is-wh y-we're-gonna-kill-all-those-who-do" Dell fanboy? IBM's often quoted as a major friend-of-OSS, but any real-$$ investments they have made are targeted towards things that are beneficial to themselves and/or hurtful to enemies (e.g. Eclipse). I don't see them contributing to improve linux performance on Itaniums, for example.
There's no fundamental difference between that and Sun coughing up the $$ into their own targets on their own platform.
You'll note IBM hasn't GPL-ed AIX either and decided to support linux exclusively.
There IS a good thing coming out
MSFT and SUNW have plausible deniability in that they can claim the payments were for SCOX licenses.
.
I'm thinking it's even better than that - can't they turn around and demand their money back once the SCO case against IBM collapses, by saying "we paid you this much $$ because you said you owned the licensing rights, now it turns out you don't, i want my money back"?
so for MS (and Sun?) it can turn out to be a fairly cost-free way to try and slow down linux adoption...
Actually, it kinda sticks in my craw a bit that Sun would stoop to "license" UNIX rights from a company like SCO (makes me really think that they must be doing it to try to help SCO slow linux down), considering the lineage Sun's Solaris has.
the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.
I think it's important to be clear what "switching to x86" actually means.
Are we talking about Apple selling shrinkwrapped copies of "Mac OS X x86 Edition!!!" in stores, shopping it to manufacturers/OEMs, etc. etc.?
*OR* are we talking about Apple shipping - in their own housings, their own designed motherboards etc. etc. something that uses an AMD64/Opteron inside?
If it's the latter, then Apple would still have "total control".
I'm thinking that if it happens, it'll be Apple-ships-their-own-x86 hardware, not only because of the "total control" aspect, but also because they'll be able to control pricing (I'd personally forget the idea of super-cheap Macs; it's a conscious decision by them not to compete in that space, I believe. Where margins are low you have to make up for it in volume which carries it's own set of costs/difficulties), and, most importantly, offering shrinkwrapped "can install on any x86 machine" Mac OS X would be a total declaration of war against Microsoft.
Even a company that is not beholden to MS would be chary of doing something like that, and Apple absolutely needs Microsoft Office on their platform.
Wow.
:-)
(a) haha, yeah, that's what dads would say
(b) that's a kickass story to be able to tell YOUR kids
this is just a standard "rabbit", it's not unique to windows.
considering microwave ovens also operate in the 2.4GHz band, walking into your house could be a very hot experience :-)