Unfortunately, Apple appears to be taking a page from M$ here. At least, half a page at any rate.
MacOS X Server does appear to cost $999. OSX itself will probably be around $100, just as MacOS is now (it's slated to replace MacOS, and it can't do that if it isn't priced similarly).
The difference is that with MacOSX Server you get unlimited clients. NT costs nearly five times as much for that right which M$ calls a "privilege."
Now, there's one other possibility. Consider: it appears that OSX will be perfectly usable as a server. Also consider that $999 is the cost of membership in Apple's developer program. Furthermore, take into account that OSX Server is in essence a beta of OSX. Are you starting to get the picture? The $999 price tag is essentially for the right to betatest OSX. I'd imagine the price will drop very drastically once OSX is released.
This is a sad thing...
on
Hayes is Dead
·
· Score: 1
However, check the stock-ticker box on the article. Is it just me, or is something wrong with that?
In any case, we all owe a lot to Hayes, whether or not we use modems. If not for them, I'd consider it quite likely that the Net as we know it would be vastly different, and the change wouldn't be for the better.
Not really. Not like this. Yeah, it's been around for Windows (as a matter of fact, they're working on a Mac port right now), but you've fotgotten two things: 1) Its compatibility, while admirable for a project of its kind (emulating a recent system within only a year or two of development time) isn't exactly stellar. 2) It's illegal anyway. This might not be (then again, it depends on how Sony's feeling).
well he is still wrong and so are you! a large number of nick users flame too, it's just easyer to blame the AC's for it because you only have to remember the one name. do the research and you will see it for your self.
I did. Most flames are posted by people going under the AC alias.
i wont even get into the fact that alot of nick users prolly drop their nicks when they flame.
You're probably right, but they're AC's when they do that nonetheless. With one exception: those people, who have their own nicks but not the guts to put them behind their arguments, are the real cowards.
Come to think of it, why are you flaming me? I never meant to offend anybody. I was just stating that most people who flame are AC's, not that all AC's flame. And I do count nick users who drop the nicks to flame as AC's; those people certainly have the "coward" part of it right.
One: The links were still there, in the form of those little icons at the bottom of each blurb. Scoop should have put up a small box explaining these icons, granted, but they weren't too hard to figure out.
Two: You don't get it. Form (interface would be a better word) is the most important aspect of a program, Web page, etc. The best program in the world is worthless if no one can use it; to well over ninety-five percent of the world's population pico is more powerful than vi or emacs because of this fact; they have never used any of these three programs but would be immediately be able to get to work in pico while at least ten minutes of poring over books/manpages/etc would be required just to figure out how to quit either of the other two, to say nothing of saving, searching, or any other function. Scoop tried to make his site more powerful by enhancing the interface, and he did a damn good job of it too (granted, I don't like the new logo but the old one would have been even worse in the new layout so it was good that he changed it). And you belittle him over a change that benifited you as much as it did everyone else. I find that disgusting.
This said, I have two small suggestions for Scoop: 1) Have a small box or bar at the top which explains the three little icons. They confused me for a minute or two, they evidently confused this guy even more, and they probably confused more than a few others. 2) Change the logo. Not back to the old one; it was right for its layout but not this one. I'm afraid, however, I cannot help you in designing The Perfect Logo(tm) for the new layout. Perhaps a contest would be the wise way to go?
These two criticisms voiced, I'm throwing my support wholeheartedly behind Scoop. Don't stay away too long, pal.
Rumors have been floating about a QuickTime port for Linux; I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple Open-Sourced that (anyone noticed how it seems to have been getting more and more friendly to the OSS community lately?)
However, it might just be the server for now. And it reinforces a view which most Linux users refuse to see; at least right now Linux is only for the backroom; a fact which will not change until it's got the one thing it still lacks: usability. Gnome and KDE are making great strides towards this, but neither is there yet (and if you look at the two, despite their version numbers they're actually about equal; each focuses on different aspects at different times but overall it's a draw at this point). Certain Slashdotters who I won't name here can rant their techno-fascist babble about "the idiots will ruin Linux" all they want, but Linux needs usability. I'd say that, given what is out there and where it appears to be going, that it has about two years left before it reaches it. In other words, we'll have that last key piece of the puzzle about the release date of Windows 2000... um... 2001... wait... I mean 2002.
Slashdot Mirror
For that price I can get the iMac with Virtual PC and run Linux/x86 im emulation faster than the Celeron can natively. It's true.
Unfortunately, Apple appears to be taking a page from M$ here. At least, half a page at any rate.
MacOS X Server does appear to cost $999. OSX itself will probably be around $100, just as MacOS is now (it's slated to replace MacOS, and it can't do that if it isn't priced similarly).
The difference is that with MacOSX Server you get unlimited clients. NT costs nearly five times as much for that right which M$ calls a "privilege."
Now, there's one other possibility. Consider: it appears that OSX will be perfectly usable as a server. Also consider that $999 is the cost of membership in Apple's developer program. Furthermore, take into account that OSX Server is in essence a beta of OSX. Are you starting to get the picture? The $999 price tag is essentially for the right to betatest OSX. I'd imagine the price will drop very drastically once OSX is released.
However, check the stock-ticker box on the article. Is it just me, or is something wrong with that?
In any case, we all owe a lot to Hayes, whether or not we use modems. If not for them, I'd consider it quite likely that the Net as we know it would be vastly different, and the change wouldn't be for the better.
Excuse me. I need to go get my copyrights on "How are you?", "What's up?", and "AOL sucks."
Not really. Not like this. Yeah, it's been around for Windows (as a matter of fact, they're working on a Mac port right now), but you've fotgotten two things:
1) Its compatibility, while admirable for a project of its kind (emulating a recent system within only a year or two of development time) isn't exactly stellar.
2) It's illegal anyway. This might not be (then again, it depends on how Sony's feeling).
well he is still wrong and so are you! a large number of nick users flame too, it's just easyer to blame the AC's for it because you only have to remember the one name. do the research and you will see it for your self.
I did. Most flames are posted by people going under the AC alias.
i wont even get into the fact that alot of nick users prolly drop their nicks when they flame.
You're probably right, but they're AC's when they do that nonetheless. With one exception: those people, who have their own nicks but not the guts to put them behind their arguments, are the real cowards.
Come to think of it, why are you flaming me? I never meant to offend anybody. I was just stating that most people who flame are AC's, not that all AC's flame. And I do count nick users who drop the nicks to flame as AC's; those people certainly have the "coward" part of it right.
One: The links were still there, in the form of those little icons at the bottom of each blurb. Scoop should have put up a small box explaining these icons, granted, but they weren't too hard to figure out.
Two: You don't get it. Form (interface would be a better word) is the most important aspect of a program, Web page, etc. The best program in the world is worthless if no one can use it; to well over ninety-five percent of the world's population pico is more powerful than vi or emacs because of this fact; they have never used any of these three programs but would be immediately be able to get to work in pico while at least ten minutes of poring over books/manpages/etc would be required just to figure out how to quit either of the other two, to say nothing of saving, searching, or any other function. Scoop tried to make his site more powerful by enhancing the interface, and he did a damn good job of it too (granted, I don't like the new logo but the old one would have been even worse in the new layout so it was good that he changed it). And you belittle him over a change that benifited you as much as it did everyone else. I find that disgusting.
This said, I have two small suggestions for Scoop:
1) Have a small box or bar at the top which explains the three little icons. They confused me for a minute or two, they evidently confused this guy even more, and they probably confused more than a few others.
2) Change the logo. Not back to the old one; it was right for its layout but not this one. I'm afraid, however, I cannot help you in designing The Perfect Logo(tm) for the new layout. Perhaps a contest would be the wise way to go?
These two criticisms voiced, I'm throwing my support wholeheartedly behind Scoop. Don't stay away too long, pal.
Rumors have been floating about a QuickTime port for Linux; I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple Open-Sourced that (anyone noticed how it seems to have been getting more and more friendly to the OSS community lately?)
However, it might just be the server for now. And it reinforces a view which most Linux users refuse to see; at least right now Linux is only for the backroom; a fact which will not change until it's got the one thing it still lacks: usability. Gnome and KDE are making great strides towards this, but neither is there yet (and if you look at the two, despite their version numbers they're actually about equal; each focuses on different aspects at different times but overall it's a draw at this point). Certain Slashdotters who I won't name here can rant their techno-fascist babble about "the idiots will ruin Linux" all they want, but Linux needs usability. I'd say that, given what is out there and where it appears to be going, that it has about two years left before it reaches it. In other words, we'll have that last key piece of the puzzle about the release date of Windows 2000... um... 2001... wait... I mean 2002.