Seriously, what's the point of running Linux on a Mac. It's not like you can get Macs without the operating system. Isn't the whole point of Linux that it's an x86 alternative to Windows?
I'm running Linux on my Powerbook because:
-The Powerbook was cheaper than x86-based notebooks with built-in LAN the time I bought it (Aug 2000)
- The Powerbook has great battery life
MacOS9 sucks badly compared to KDE/Linux and I don't think MacOSX is much better. (I want multiple desktops and 3 mouse-buttons. Everything else is sub-optimal)
If I could run OS X on my x86 box, Linux would never have even entered the running of my considerations.
Now tell me exactly what OSX can do what Linux can't?
KDE/Linux can do a lot OSX can't:
- Multiple desktops
- Real 3 mouse button support
- A browser (Konqueror) that respawns all windows from the previous session on log-in (no more temporary bookmarks)
- Web/News/Mailserver preinstalled. I *DO MIND* spending hours downloading/installing all this.
- and more...
In my point of view, there is not much MacOSX can offer for me in comparison to KDE.
Linux has its applications but why would you drop that kind of cash on that kind of machine to run linux on it? You can run linux on a cheap Athlon and have the same (if not better) performance.
Well, maybe because there are other things in life than performance?
I think the new iMac comes in handy for semi-public terminals (like in companies) or something like this.
Now, maybe where you are corporations rule and buy their own laws left and right but that's not the way it is all over the globe. I have a feeling that in many countries the court would just say "if you want people to understand it then write so that they can."
For example in Germany the whole EULA is completely void, that's why there are no longer OEM-licenses in Germany. (Courts said that users could use them everywhere, not just on the computer it came on)
The funny (or sad) part is that Microsoft also does not follow their own EULA in Germany: You don't get any refunds.
This point has been made before, but it bears repeating. C# [www.ecma.ch] and the CLI (Common Language Infrastructure) [www.ecma.ch] are ECMA [www.ecma.ch] standards! As such Microsoft no longer truly controls them.
Oh yeah, sure. Committing less than 10% of the base classes to ECMA means "it's a standard" and out of control of Microsoft.
Sometimes I ask myself if people like you really believe Microsoft marketing or spread it on purpose just to hype their stock.
Anyway:
There is nothing to keep Microsoft from 'embracing and extending' these standards if they do not like the direction they are going.
They don't have to do that. Since only a tiny part of.NET and C# is standardized, IT'S ALREADY DONE.
For all practical purposes,.NET is just the next Win32-API, not much more, not much less.
In fact, the biggest marketing fukup that Sun made was not shipping a supported VB.NET-like language for the JVM before Microsoft finished theirs. Unlike esoteric functional languages, the JVM implementation wouldn't have hurt ObjectBASIC one bit. Sun just missed the boat on the selling to the largest group of corporate programmers - VB users.
It's terrible how everybody simply assumes that every MS-product is used by the "largest group" of users and everyone takes it for granted.
Sorry, but *Java* is the most used language today, followed by C++, followed by C.
I don't say VB isn't important, but it doesn't even come near of being the "largest".
... why would anybody want to use multiple languages for the same project anyway?
If you start a project you are pretty happy if you(r people) can deal with one language (or as few as possible) there is simply no need for this.
The way I see it, it's a nice-to-have feature, but no killer-feature.
Platform-independence, on the other hand, *IS* a killer feature because you can be sure that your customers can use it and can also switch platforms.
Java is not only implemented, but also tested and proven on many, many platforms. It's established in many ways -.NET just doesn't offer enough for people to switch over to it. It may be the successor of Visual Basic (= the users that use anything from MS anyway), but IMO not much more.
I think.NET is a solution without a problem.
"That's reverse engineering proprietary code, which is illegal."
Everywhere in the world except the land of the DMCA, reverse engineering is legal.
And even if it were illegal in Germany, they are the Bundestag, they can make it legal.
I know it's highly controversial to say this, but IMO, GNU is no longer the driving force behind free software. While GNU created great things in the past (emacs, shell-utilities and above all gcc of course) lately development seems to have stagnated a bit.
It seems to me that GNU and the FSF has become a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who forgot what free software is all about.
Today, the real dynamic and successful projects are mostly non-GNU: KDE, Apache, Linux, Wine, etc.
Today, GNOME is the only GNU-project that can be called a bit dynamic, and I think this is because of a lot of 3rd party involvement via the GNOME-foundation and the fact that RMS is not the final authority in the GNOME-project.
What breakthroughs has there been in RMS-led projects in the last - say - 5 years? I can't think of any.
Of course, gcc is still the best open-source compiler we have, and no alternative is in sight (unless Intel open-sources theirs which is highly unlikely), but I see it as a weak spot in the free software-world. How long have we been waiting for a decsent c++ compiler? Maybe I'm paranoid, but maybe RMS is not very enthusiastic about C++ support because GNOME would look even worse in comparison to KDE, once a good C++ compiler is available?
I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork.
But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.
You tell me: Why is *VERY* new PDA-design based on Linux? I don't see any new companies putting out WinCE or PalmOS based designs, all choose Linux.
If you start from scratch, Linux is the way to go.
PalmOS and WindowsCE are already very established, and people trust/use them. Also, these OSes were MADE for PDAs, instead of being ported.
WinCE was not made for PDAs in BillGates wet dreams it should have been good for all kinds of embedded applications.
But it's correct, PalmOS and WinCE are established and for a company already producing WinCE or PalmOS - based PDAs, a switch might not be worth it.
However, as I said, all companies entering the PDA-market are choosing Linux.
Is it the fact that it is open source, although windows ce is already open source?
You are funny.
WinCE is not open-source, there are just some parts open (an uncompilable source is pretty useless) and it's not gratis. (Although MS has dropped the price in the last years)
And on top of that both the partly-open-sourceness and the relatively cheapness can change anytime. (Hint: Probably as soon as you became dependent on it)
I know you can run more applications with linux on the pda, but how many applications do you actually need for your pda that are not availible for windows ce and palmos?
None. So?
I am sure that hackers will enjoy it, but is there really a market for linux pdas?
The market does not care about that. A Linux-PDA won't look any different than any other for a consumer.
I think the great thing about Lindows is that it's really and exclusively targeted on the desktop and that they have great marketing.
For example a Windows user who hates Microsoft but also does not want to try Linux, said he would check out Lindows. - It's marketing.
If Lindows is successful, Linux will gain a lot of users and with them better support from hardware and software vendors. - I don't see why this could be a bad thing.
While I'm also not sure about their success, I whish they really make some inroads.
I won't even consider windows. Their recent licensing moves are too intolerable.
Conformists will never understand that.
"Windows is unstable" - But it owns the market!
"Windows is virus-prone" - But it owns the market"
"Windows is expensive" - But it owns the market!
"Windows isn't flexible" - But it owns the market!
I like linux, I use it alot both for work and home use but I am getting tired of the chase for the desktop market. MS, like it or not it, are pretty secure on the desktop market. Where Linux scores is the server room and for that area I personally prefer reliablity, security etc over a fancy GUI front end.
GUI's are nice but not the end of the world.
Oh no, not another "use Linux on servers because everybody does it, but use Windows on desktop because everybody does it" - conformists.
Weren't those the same people that said Linux was just a toy and not usable for servers 5 years ago?
If everybody would do what "everybody" we would still be IN THE STONE AGE.
Sometimes you got to do something not "everybody" does, it's called *progress*.
AFAIK if you use WineLib you can compile a Windows-program on a non-x86 Linux platform.
Re:huh? I already got free.
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As far as social simulation and other interesting not-common-on-American-PCs genres go...
I think this was a major reason for Loki failing - they concentrated on the American market where Linux is scarce on the desktop.
I've made a small statistic on the basis of newsgroups. It shows that in the average American, non-technical newsgroup there, about 0 to 5% are posting with Linux, in the average German, non-technical newsgroup, about 5 to 25% post using Linux.
Even with less than 1/3rd of the population there are almost certainly more Linux-desktops in Germany alone than in the U.S.A.
Re:Use operating systems for what they're good for
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 2
I never said that Linux was "BAD" at running video games, and I never quoted any benchmarks claiming windows was faster.
You said that you shouldn't run games on Linux which sounds pretty dumb for me.
It all boils down to the usual: If the app is available on Linux (natively or via Wine, doesn't matter), use Linux, if not, reboot to Windows.
Linux certainly is able to run games and I don't see a reason why I should not use Linux to run games.
Re:Use operating systems for what they're good for
on
Loki Games Closing?
·
· Score: 2
And the pathetic thing is, it's the best Linux has to offer...
No, there are aviplay and mplayer.
aviplay has great functionality and good usability while mplayer is uncrashable and plays adequate even on slooooowww machines.
WMP has bad functionality and uses a lot of resources.
... to call the absorption of RedHat by AOL/Time/Warner/whatever-else a "merger".
Re:Oh, of course I use .wma...
on
Non-MP3 Codecs?
·
· Score: 1
Because I have to quit this filthy.mp3 habit. I need the music industry to help me overcome my addiction to free music, so with digital content controls I won't be tempted to download gigabyte upon gigabyte of free music.
Please somebody mod this up, that's the best slashdot comment I've read since a looong time...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running Linux on my Powerbook because:
-The Powerbook was cheaper than x86-based notebooks with built-in LAN the time I bought it (Aug 2000) - The Powerbook has great battery life
MacOS9 sucks badly compared to KDE/Linux and I don't think MacOSX is much better. (I want multiple desktops and 3 mouse-buttons. Everything else is sub-optimal)
If I could run OS X on my x86 box, Linux would never have even entered the running of my considerations.
Now tell me exactly what OSX can do what Linux can't?
KDE/Linux can do a lot OSX can't:
- Multiple desktops - Real 3 mouse button support - A browser (Konqueror) that respawns all windows from the previous session on log-in (no more temporary bookmarks) - Web/News/Mailserver preinstalled. I *DO MIND* spending hours downloading/installing all this. - and more...
In my point of view, there is not much MacOSX can offer for me in comparison to KDE.
Well, maybe because there are other things in life than performance?
I think the new iMac comes in handy for semi-public terminals (like in companies) or something like this.
I know that I shouldn't ask this because there has already been enough changes and troubles in 2.4 - but I've got some Karma to burn:
Wasn't this patch long enough available on 2.4 so that it should be stable enough?
That's why the /. crowd is complaining !!
Exactly.
And we all know that freedom is unamerican and communist. (Thanks go to Microsoft for pointing that out).
For example in Germany the whole EULA is completely void, that's why there are no longer OEM-licenses in Germany. (Courts said that users could use them everywhere, not just on the computer it came on)
The funny (or sad) part is that Microsoft also does not follow their own EULA in Germany: You don't get any refunds.
But they still ship everything with the EULA...
Oh yeah, sure. Committing less than 10% of the base classes to ECMA means "it's a standard" and out of control of Microsoft.
Sometimes I ask myself if people like you really believe Microsoft marketing or spread it on purpose just to hype their stock.
Anyway:
There is nothing to keep Microsoft from 'embracing and extending' these standards if they do not like the direction they are going.
They don't have to do that. Since only a tiny part of .NET and C# is standardized, IT'S ALREADY DONE.
For all practical purposes, .NET is just the next Win32-API, not much more, not much less.
It's terrible how everybody simply assumes that every MS-product is used by the "largest group" of users and everyone takes it for granted.
Sorry, but *Java* is the most used language today, followed by C++, followed by C.
I don't say VB isn't important, but it doesn't even come near of being the "largest".
... why would anybody want to use multiple languages for the same project anyway? If you start a project you are pretty happy if you(r people) can deal with one language (or as few as possible) there is simply no need for this. The way I see it, it's a nice-to-have feature, but no killer-feature. Platform-independence, on the other hand, *IS* a killer feature because you can be sure that your customers can use it and can also switch platforms. Java is not only implemented, but also tested and proven on many, many platforms. It's established in many ways - .NET just doesn't offer enough for people to switch over to it. It may be the successor of Visual Basic (= the users that use anything from MS anyway), but IMO not much more.
I think .NET is a solution without a problem.
"That's reverse engineering proprietary code, which is illegal." Everywhere in the world except the land of the DMCA, reverse engineering is legal. And even if it were illegal in Germany, they are the Bundestag, they can make it legal.
The problem is that in the case of GCC and any other project led by RMS, things are not that easy.
In the case of GCC, I think a fork might be very beneficial to fuel development.
It seems to me that GNU and the FSF has become a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who forgot what free software is all about.
Today, the real dynamic and successful projects are mostly non-GNU: KDE, Apache, Linux, Wine, etc.
Today, GNOME is the only GNU-project that can be called a bit dynamic, and I think this is because of a lot of 3rd party involvement via the GNOME-foundation and the fact that RMS is not the final authority in the GNOME-project.
What breakthroughs has there been in RMS-led projects in the last - say - 5 years? I can't think of any.
Of course, gcc is still the best open-source compiler we have, and no alternative is in sight (unless Intel open-sources theirs which is highly unlikely), but I see it as a weak spot in the free software-world. How long have we been waiting for a decsent c++ compiler? Maybe I'm paranoid, but maybe RMS is not very enthusiastic about C++ support because GNOME would look even worse in comparison to KDE, once a good C++ compiler is available?
I think we need a lot more non-GNU involvment for gcc (gcc-foundation?) to get some fresh blood into this project. And if RMS doesn't allow that, we need a fork.
But of course, that's just my opinion, so flame me.
Huh?
Not profitable because you have lower royalties and lower development costs?
The only disadvantage Linux has in the PDA-market is that it's relatively late in the marketplace, otherwise there are only advantages, IMO.
but does linux really belong in the PDA market?
You tell me: Why is *VERY* new PDA-design based on Linux? I don't see any new companies putting out WinCE or PalmOS based designs, all choose Linux.
If you start from scratch, Linux is the way to go.
PalmOS and WindowsCE are already very established, and people trust/use them. Also, these OSes were MADE for PDAs, instead of being ported.
WinCE was not made for PDAs in BillGates wet dreams it should have been good for all kinds of embedded applications.
But it's correct, PalmOS and WinCE are established and for a company already producing WinCE or PalmOS - based PDAs, a switch might not be worth it.
However, as I said, all companies entering the PDA-market are choosing Linux.
Is it the fact that it is open source, although windows ce is already open source?
You are funny.
WinCE is not open-source, there are just some parts open (an uncompilable source is pretty useless) and it's not gratis. (Although MS has dropped the price in the last years)
And on top of that both the partly-open-sourceness and the relatively cheapness can change anytime. (Hint: Probably as soon as you became dependent on it)
I know you can run more applications with linux on the pda, but how many applications do you actually need for your pda that are not availible for windows ce and palmos?
None. So?
I am sure that hackers will enjoy it, but is there really a market for linux pdas?
The market does not care about that. A Linux-PDA won't look any different than any other for a consumer.
The developers care.
You don't get the difference between obligatory and optional.
Lindows is emulating Windows, so what? There are dozens of distributions out there and Lindows will be just one of them.
Yes, we do.
I think the great thing about Lindows is that it's really and exclusively targeted on the desktop and that they have great marketing.
For example a Windows user who hates Microsoft but also does not want to try Linux, said he would check out Lindows. - It's marketing.
If Lindows is successful, Linux will gain a lot of users and with them better support from hardware and software vendors. - I don't see why this could be a bad thing.
While I'm also not sure about their success, I whish they really make some inroads.
Why this?
Because it uses windows and a mouse?
Oh well, then pretty every environment is a "Windows knockoff".
BTW, Windows XP copied the "often used apps" feature from KDE.
Conformists will never understand that.
"Windows is unstable" - But it owns the market!
"Windows is virus-prone" - But it owns the market"
"Windows is expensive" - But it owns the market!
"Windows isn't flexible" - But it owns the market!
It's called "herd mentality".
I like linux, I use it alot both for work and home use but I am getting tired of the chase for the desktop market. MS, like it or not it, are pretty secure on the desktop market. Where Linux scores is the server room and for that area I personally prefer reliablity, security etc over a fancy GUI front end. GUI's are nice but not the end of the world.
Oh no, not another "use Linux on servers because everybody does it, but use Windows on desktop because everybody does it" - conformists.
Weren't those the same people that said Linux was just a toy and not usable for servers 5 years ago?
If everybody would do what "everybody" we would still be IN THE STONE AGE.
Sometimes you got to do something not "everybody" does, it's called *progress*.
The company which produced the game in the first place might *gasp* release a Linux-version at virtually no cost.
So, what's the point?
The point is that Wine functions as a bridge to fuel Linux-desktop adoption which is the prerequesite for Linux applications (including games)
AFAIK if you use WineLib you can compile a Windows-program on a non-x86 Linux platform.
I think this was a major reason for Loki failing - they concentrated on the American market where Linux is scarce on the desktop.
I've made a small statistic on the basis of newsgroups. It shows that in the average American, non-technical newsgroup there, about 0 to 5% are posting with Linux, in the average German, non-technical newsgroup, about 5 to 25% post using Linux.
Even with less than 1/3rd of the population there are almost certainly more Linux-desktops in Germany alone than in the U.S.A.
You said that you shouldn't run games on Linux which sounds pretty dumb for me.
It all boils down to the usual: If the app is available on Linux (natively or via Wine, doesn't matter), use Linux, if not, reboot to Windows.
Linux certainly is able to run games and I don't see a reason why I should not use Linux to run games.
No, there are aviplay and mplayer.
aviplay has great functionality and good usability while mplayer is uncrashable and plays adequate even on slooooowww machines.
WMP has bad functionality and uses a lot of resources.
... to call the absorption of RedHat by AOL/Time/Warner/whatever-else a "merger".
Please somebody mod this up, that's the best slashdot comment I've read since a looong time...