Linux for the masses will be consistent across all platforms. No multiple distributions or window managers. One and only one of each.
Users will never need to know Unix to use Linux for the masses. Unix is a very complex operating system and the less users need to know it the more they will use it.
Common system tasks will be automated. Users need not know Linux system administration to use it.
I don't know about you all, but to me, this flies in the face of much of the logic about what makes open source great--competition (or "coopetition"), like between GNOME and KDE. So long as the two don't diverge too greatly, I see no problem with having both (or others, if they are well-developed). The key is not consistency, but interoperability--i.e. so long as I can use a GNOME app under KDE and vice versa, I see no real problem.
As for point 2, I agree that at some point as much of the CLI needs to be hidden as possible--with the caveat that it should still be easily available if needed. Linux should remain user-friendly for those "Dilbert T-shirt" types *as well as* for their moms.
From simple xenophobic tendancies to straight out evasion or the girls lockeroom. You cannot lose.
The "cloaking device" had to be one of the most pointless "inventions" of Star Trek. Think about it. You have two warships, both cloaked, trying to fight each other.
The battle ends when someone says, "What's this button do?", or both sides get bored to death.
Hm. Interesting idea, but there are some instances where the device can't possibly work in "real-time". Simple example that's close to my heart: translating from German to English on-the-fly. Problem: German has the rather odd habit of smacking verbs at the end of the sentence, often a loooonnnng way away from the subject, whereas English prefers to have the subject and verb at the beginning of the sentence (especially in spoken English).
The story goes that an English visitor to Germany in the 19th century went to see a political debate with Otto von Bismarck, with her translator in tow. The debate went on, with Bismarck himself saying nothing, until finally he rose to speak at length about some minutely detailed point of law. The visitor craned forward to hear her translator, who for quite some time said nary a word--until the visitor became impatient and asked what Bismarck was saying, to which the translator replied, "Please, madam, I am waiting for the verb!"
Interesting to see that Raster and Mandrake are looking to possibly make E into a full desktop, a la GNOME and KDE. But I have to wonder if their efforts would be mislaid in that case...wouldn't it be better for them to properly contribute their knowledge and insight directly to GNOME or KDE, or better, both?
For the secret message, check out the boldface letters.:-)
That's a good start, but let's face it; a mom is someone who'll tell all her friends that you're a Spacelord if that's what you insist you are.
Er, well, I meant that she calls me one _without_ my prompting her to do so. I never told her "I'm a hacker" any more than I told her "I pick boogers from other people's noses".
I have to admit to being slightly amused at the idea of laws changing the workplace much, 'specially in "new media" et. al. I work in Germany, where the labor laws make things in America look downright sweatshoppish...yet it's also quite normal for people in new media to work ungodly hours and get no overtime pay (the Voice of Experience(TM)).
The point is that the law is very near totally ineffective until someone actually decides to complain, thus pretty much ensuring that the job will go bye-bye (or thus creating a rather hostile working atmosphere), regardless of the legal restrictions. So no one says anything, which in effect implies consent. In a small shop--which most new media places are, i.e. less than 30 people total--there is almost no chance of anyone sticking out their necks.
This is why I got fed up and decided to go indie. At least I have a better chance of setting my own hours...and get PAID for the time I put in. Amazing how much more fun it is.
I'm not saying that the distinction isn't useful, or that there isn't one. I'm saying that "hackers are bad" is one of those facts that Everyone KnowsTM.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The term "hacker" already passes MomTest v1.0 (i.e. with my mom). Well, sort of. She's semi-computer-literate, but describes me as a "hacker" sometimes, even though I'm not really a coder in the strict sense of the word (I don't do C or Perl, but do DHTML, JavaScript, Apache junque, etc.).
Toilets flush in the opposite direction down south,
You mean...they don't?;-)
These are truths, they're just not true.
All the more reason to jump on the ramparts and try and do battle to explain the difference. Sure, it gets tiring, but somebody's gotta do it.
If the TV calls you a hacker, then you're a hacker.
Not quite true. The distinction between "hacker" and "cracker" is a useful one--to wildly generalize it, a "hacker" is essentially non-malicious, a cracker is not. Many (most?) of/.ers would describe themselves quite proudly as "hackers", and obviously do not take kindly to being portrayed in a negative light because of it.
I see no reason, therefore, not to try and defend that distinction.
Well, that's actually been done in the movies (probably more than once). Check out one of Sean Connery's Bond movies, back in the 60s. I forget which one, but it's the one where an air force pilot is hypnotized (or something) and gets under the spell of sceptre. At the same time, sceptre makes a copy of the president's iris implant and alters the air force pilot's iris to match the presidents (i dont have a clue how).
They did it in a particularly brutal way--they supposedly stole the President's retina scan and made a fake eyeball that they implanted in the Air Force officer's eye socket. The officer--who had security clearance, which is why SPECTRE chose him--then went to a control room, where he duly placed his face into a rather fearful-looking device for scanning, and he apparently had to do some kind of tuning (I remember him being nervous and having to practice for some reason).
But that wouldn't be necessary in the "real world". Somewhere, a digital copy of your iris scan data would have to exist, which could then be copied without anyone's knowledge; using some way of patching the interface to the iris scanner, one could bypass the need for an eyeball and just feed the data into the scanner.
Oh, and the movie was "Thunderball", not "From Russia with Love".:-)
The people who ask if some mugger is going to rip your eyes out with a Swiss army knife are missing several points:
The "mugger" doesn't need your eyes. He just needs to nab you *after* getting your money...or do it like in Central America, where they kidnap you and drive you off to a series of ATMs until your account is empty or they get bored and just shoot you.
In the future, there will certainly also be technological workarounds to fool such scanners. It would be a difficult problem, but not unsolvable--scan the person's eye (or steal a previous scan) and replicate it.
In the future, you have more to fear from the crackpot behind his modem (be he from the government or a criminal) than you do from the mugger on the street.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you thought NT was unstable, try MacOS with no protected memory or preemptive multitasking...
Sad. You start losing an argument, you you change the subject.
I'll assume that the lack of your trying to counter my arguments can be construed to mean that you _have_ no other arguments.
outperforming G3 macintoshes for rendering
*sigh* I don't "render" anything. I design it. If the system gets in my way, it's useless. NT gets in my way. Fuggedaboutit.
FWIW I use Macs and Linux. Both work fine and dandy and do exactly what I want them to (Macs as workstations, Linux for servers). Since you're apprently a Microsoft engineer or whatever, if that's what blows up your skirt, fine. Just don't try and foist it on me. I'd rather give up computers entirely than be forced to use NT.
And if you _really_ want a media system on Intel iron, try Be. NT is laughable. I take pride in the fact that I have an Intel- and MS-free shop anyway.
You're wrong. What constitutes a monoploy is not formally defined in law;
You have missed totally missed the point of the court cases: Microsoft is not being sued for being a monopoly, but for abusing its position, which is quite a separate issue.
Your counterargument also does not refute the fact that there is no such thing as retroactive law in the United States. It is *not allowed*.
The Sherman Act is deliberately vague like this. While the letter of the law cannot act retroactively, the spirit can, and that's what drives the verdict.
So mere interpretation of the law is suddenly an application of ex post facto jurisdiction? Come on! Don't be ridiculous! Come be to the real world before you come with another counterargument...
Just because some things become convention and some don't, that does not constitute coercion.
Yes, they do, if they threaten my livelihood. If I am unable to earn money without resorting to using Microsoft products, AND all options to use other products are closed through the actions of Microsoft, that is as good a case of coercion as there can be. This is what we call...an abuse of monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. Abusing one is.
I have used this sig for the past three years. Two of those years were spent as a software salesman, and I have never had any problems, nor objections, from anybody internal nor customers.
Fine for you. You most likely only have to read through some file, in which case your method is all fine and dandy.
But suppose you're a consultant who is supposed to collaborate with a client who uses pretty much only Microsoft products--say, financial data, or graphic design work, or whatever. So long as you only want to "view" the work, your method is fine.
But if you want to *edit* and *collaborate* on it, you're stuck with either a larger hassle--converting the file back and forth--or something simply undoable. Which results in a frustrated customer who will go somewhere else...where they use Microsoft products.
The exact some process is why high-end graphics users are moving to NT away from Macs. Not because NT is better than a Mac for graphics, but just because they are more "compatible" with what clients are using (at least that is one of the more compelling reasons).
Let's face it--NT is such junk that this is the only explanation for why anyone would be so insane as to want to use it. You want a _real_ high-end workstation or server? Fine, use Unix/Linux/Solaris/IRIX. You want a _really_ decent desktop computer? Get an iMac with NetBoot.
Heh, I'm betting that MS's lawyers are all over the place, rather than focusing on one issue. You can only hire so many lawyers before it starts to drain your blood supplies;)
Yeah! Let's ALL sue 'em!;-)))
Reasons to Sue Microsoft
Bad hair day (MS-BlowDryer didn't work)
Bank account empty (due to NT "security" at the bank)
Bad coffee (since Java is being polluted)
Disturbance of the peace (due to screaming MS users after yet another crash)
Loss of productivity and medical costs (due to migraines of suffering users)
Antitrust law is retroactive, which means that even if something was perfectly legal when you actually did it, if it is subsequently declared illegal you are still liable.
This is flat-out false. Read the U.S. Constitution, bub. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." In other words, ain't no such thing as retroactive law.
This means that there is no way to tell if you are breaking the law when you do something, because the law doesn't exist yet!
You been reading Kafka too much?
Microsoft's phalanx of corporate lawyers would never have broken existing laws, Bill is too smart for that.
Ridiculous. Bill just interprets the law the way it suits him--until he gets caught bending the rules just a little too far. Reminds me of another Bill we all know.
If you were to take a straw poll on/. you'd find many people who believe that all software should only come from the open source community by divine right.
Does open source hold a monopoly? By definition, no. Open source is not a monolith--it's a process. Microsoft IS a monolith, and a monopoly. You simply can't compare the two.
Bill's simply more successful than anyone else because he was the first to realise the truth: There is no such thing as a software project, there are only business projects with a software element.
No one blames Microsoft for being successful. We do blame them for abusing their position. That's where they broke the law.
Force is the sole monopoly of governments.
Ah. A card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I see. Mmmm-hmmm...
Repeat that statement while someone is pointing a.357 Magnum at your head and demanding your wallet.
The only force here is that applied by the DOJ.
Baloney. Microsoft also forced numerous companies to either be subsumed by them or be forced out of the game (WebTV, Hotmail, DR-DOS, Netscape, etc. etc. etc.). My Lord, they even had Intel majorly worried, incredibly enough. If you try to claim Microsoft doesn't use "moral force" (to use that giddy Libertarian term), then your credibility is at around null.
Just because someone is in government does not make them inherently an abuser of "moral force"--and, conversely, just because someone is NOT in government does not make them incapable or unwilling to do so, either.
Microsoft has no guns and no laws to compel people to obey, only the free judgement of the rational individuals who freely trade with them, everyone from the home PC user to megacorporations like Compaq and IBM. No-one has ever compelled you to trade with MS, you have always done do freely - it is a central fact that no-one has the right to buy whatever they want, only what they are offered for sale.
Right. Uh-huh. Now just TRY and get along WITHOUT using Microsoft products in the corporate workplace. Just TRY to see how far you make it. Your customers will abandon you, because you're incapable of opening even the simplest MS-Works document when they communicate with you. If things get worse, soon your Mac/Linux/Sun box will be unable to communicate with the other computers because they're using MS-TCP...thus cutting you off from the 90% of desktop computers in the workplace that are running Windows.
It's fascinating to look at the variance in free Unix use across different demographic borders.
I'd say it's fascinating to look at variance in OS use, period. Look at Macs, for example: they have something like 30%-40% of the market in Switzerland still, but are clinging to their position in Germany and Austria (something like 2%-3% of the markets there). Go figure.
[I]t's only purpose was to lower the value of Red Hat's IPO, and hurt Red Hat financially.
So what? Think about it. Most people outside of the Linux world (and outside of Europe) have pretty much only heard of Red Hat. SuSE isn't too well known outside of Europe, where it already has a strong presence. If anything, I think it's pretty clever on their part--steal some thunder from RH. I don't think that they are trying to deliberately harm RH's IPO, just trying to make it known that there are viable (semi-)commercial alternatives.
In a way, it's pretty ironic (no, not in the Alanis Morrisette sense) to hear people moaning about RH getting slammed by SuSE. It wasn't too long ago that everyone slammed RH for being the "Microsoft of Linux"...
Then what's with the mix of capital and small letters? Since nouns are capitalized in german, I always assumed it was some sort of abbreviation.
bEcoz itz reel kewl d00d.:-)
Seriously, it's an abbreviation. Stands for "Gesellschaft für Software- und Systementwicklung mbH", which means "Company for Software and Systems Developemt, Inc." or something like that.
The Amiga hardly bombed in the US.[...]The Ami may never have achieved, in the US, the same phenomenal success it had in Europe, but it was by nobody's measure a bomb.
Ah, well. I guess you could take that view, but the sad part is that the Amiga is barely hanging on for life. Sad, really--I remember a friend's 500 with surround sound, 3D and so on, while I was clunking with a Mac IIcx (circa 1991). Hardly to be compared...:-/
Just goes to show that you should never trust Commodore with anything. At least not for very long.:P
At least that's how it's done in German. You can also say "Susie", if you want, since "Suse" is just a German nickname for "Susanne" (that's the literal translation of the name).
At least that's the German pronunciation. I'm sure you can get away with calling it "Susie", since that's what the name means in German anyway (Suse is a nickname for "Susanne").
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you all, but to me, this flies in the face of much of the logic about what makes open source great--competition (or "coopetition"), like between GNOME and KDE. So long as the two don't diverge too greatly, I see no problem with having both (or others, if they are well-developed). The key is not consistency, but interoperability--i.e. so long as I can use a GNOME app under KDE and vice versa, I see no real problem.
As for point 2, I agree that at some point as much of the CLI needs to be hidden as possible--with the caveat that it should still be easily available if needed. Linux should remain user-friendly for those "Dilbert T-shirt" types *as well as* for their moms.
cya
Ethelred
The "cloaking device" had to be one of the most pointless "inventions" of Star Trek. Think about it. You have two warships, both cloaked, trying to fight each other.
The battle ends when someone says, "What's this button do?", or both sides get bored to death.
Ethelred
As such you ought to know that how to spell "liquor"...
Sorry.
Ethelred
The story goes that an English visitor to Germany in the 19th century went to see a political debate with Otto von Bismarck, with her translator in tow. The debate went on, with Bismarck himself saying nothing, until finally he rose to speak at length about some minutely detailed point of law. The visitor craned forward to hear her translator, who for quite some time said nary a word--until the visitor became impatient and asked what Bismarck was saying, to which the translator replied, "Please, madam, I am waiting for the verb!"
QED.
Ethelred
For the secret message, check out the boldface letters. :-)
cya
Ethelred
Er, well, I meant that she calls me one _without_ my prompting her to do so. I never told her "I'm a hacker" any more than I told her "I pick boogers from other people's noses".
Anyway, just to clear that up.
cya
Ethelred
I have to admit to being slightly amused at the idea of laws changing the workplace much, 'specially in "new media" et. al. I work in Germany, where the labor laws make things in America look downright sweatshoppish...yet it's also quite normal for people in new media to work ungodly hours and get no overtime pay (the Voice of Experience(TM)).
The point is that the law is very near totally ineffective until someone actually decides to complain, thus pretty much ensuring that the job will go bye-bye (or thus creating a rather hostile working atmosphere), regardless of the legal restrictions. So no one says anything, which in effect implies consent. In a small shop--which most new media places are, i.e. less than 30 people total--there is almost no chance of anyone sticking out their necks.
This is why I got fed up and decided to go indie. At least I have a better chance of setting my own hours...and get PAID for the time I put in. Amazing how much more fun it is.
cya
Ethelred
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The term "hacker" already passes MomTest v1.0 (i.e. with my mom). Well, sort of. She's semi-computer-literate, but describes me as a "hacker" sometimes, even though I'm not really a coder in the strict sense of the word (I don't do C or Perl, but do DHTML, JavaScript, Apache junque, etc.).
Toilets flush in the opposite direction down south,
You mean...they don't? ;-)
These are truths, they're just not true.
All the more reason to jump on the ramparts and try and do battle to explain the difference. Sure, it gets tiring, but somebody's gotta do it.
cya
Ethelred
Dunno. "Nerd" was always too negative for me. So is "geek"...then again, maybe I'm old-fashioned. :-/
cya
Ethelred
Not quite true. The distinction between "hacker" and "cracker" is a useful one--to wildly generalize it, a "hacker" is essentially non-malicious, a cracker is not. Many (most?) of /.ers would describe themselves quite proudly as "hackers", and obviously do not take kindly to being portrayed in a negative light because of it.
I see no reason, therefore, not to try and defend that distinction.
cya
Ethelred
Not if you pronounce it "ATMachine" and "PINumber" like most people do. :-)
Pet peeve.
Really? What breed? :-)
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
They did it in a particularly brutal way--they supposedly stole the President's retina scan and made a fake eyeball that they implanted in the Air Force officer's eye socket. The officer--who had security clearance, which is why SPECTRE chose him--then went to a control room, where he duly placed his face into a rather fearful-looking device for scanning, and he apparently had to do some kind of tuning (I remember him being nervous and having to practice for some reason).
But that wouldn't be necessary in the "real world". Somewhere, a digital copy of your iris scan data would have to exist, which could then be copied without anyone's knowledge; using some way of patching the interface to the iris scanner, one could bypass the need for an eyeball and just feed the data into the scanner.
Oh, and the movie was "Thunderball", not "From Russia with Love". :-)
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Anyway. Food for thought.
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Sad. You start losing an argument, you you change the subject.
I'll assume that the lack of your trying to counter my arguments can be construed to mean that you _have_ no other arguments.
outperforming G3 macintoshes for rendering
*sigh* I don't "render" anything. I design it. If the system gets in my way, it's useless. NT gets in my way. Fuggedaboutit.
FWIW I use Macs and Linux. Both work fine and dandy and do exactly what I want them to (Macs as workstations, Linux for servers). Since you're apprently a Microsoft engineer or whatever, if that's what blows up your skirt, fine. Just don't try and foist it on me. I'd rather give up computers entirely than be forced to use NT.
And if you _really_ want a media system on Intel iron, try Be. NT is laughable. I take pride in the fact that I have an Intel- and MS-free shop anyway.
cya
Ethelred
You're wrong. What constitutes a monoploy is not formally defined in law;
You have missed totally missed the point of the court cases: Microsoft is not being sued for being a monopoly, but for abusing its position, which is quite a separate issue.
Your counterargument also does not refute the fact that there is no such thing as retroactive law in the United States. It is *not allowed*.
The Sherman Act is deliberately vague like this. While the letter of the law cannot act retroactively, the spirit can, and that's what drives the verdict.
So mere interpretation of the law is suddenly an application of ex post facto jurisdiction? Come on! Don't be ridiculous! Come be to the real world before you come with another counterargument...
Just because some things become convention and some don't, that does not constitute coercion.
Yes, they do, if they threaten my livelihood. If I am unable to earn money without resorting to using Microsoft products, AND all options to use other products are closed through the actions of Microsoft, that is as good a case of coercion as there can be. This is what we call...an abuse of monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. Abusing one is.
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Fine for you. You most likely only have to read through some file, in which case your method is all fine and dandy.
But suppose you're a consultant who is supposed to collaborate with a client who uses pretty much only Microsoft products--say, financial data, or graphic design work, or whatever. So long as you only want to "view" the work, your method is fine.
But if you want to *edit* and *collaborate* on it, you're stuck with either a larger hassle--converting the file back and forth--or something simply undoable. Which results in a frustrated customer who will go somewhere else...where they use Microsoft products.
The exact some process is why high-end graphics users are moving to NT away from Macs. Not because NT is better than a Mac for graphics, but just because they are more "compatible" with what clients are using (at least that is one of the more compelling reasons).
Let's face it--NT is such junk that this is the only explanation for why anyone would be so insane as to want to use it. You want a _real_ high-end workstation or server? Fine, use Unix/Linux/Solaris/IRIX. You want a _really_ decent desktop computer? Get an iMac with NetBoot.
Anyway...
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Yeah! Let's ALL sue 'em! ;-)))
Reasons to Sue Microsoft
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
This is flat-out false. Read the U.S. Constitution, bub. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." In other words, ain't no such thing as retroactive law.
This means that there is no way to tell if you are breaking the law when you do something, because the law doesn't exist yet!
You been reading Kafka too much?
Microsoft's phalanx of corporate lawyers would never have broken existing laws, Bill is too smart for that.
Ridiculous. Bill just interprets the law the way it suits him--until he gets caught bending the rules just a little too far. Reminds me of another Bill we all know.
If you were to take a straw poll on /. you'd find many people who believe that all software should only come from the open source community by divine right.
Does open source hold a monopoly? By definition, no. Open source is not a monolith--it's a process. Microsoft IS a monolith, and a monopoly. You simply can't compare the two.
Bill's simply more successful than anyone else because he was the first to realise the truth: There is no such thing as a software project, there are only business projects with a software element.
No one blames Microsoft for being successful. We do blame them for abusing their position. That's where they broke the law.
Force is the sole monopoly of governments.
Ah. A card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I see. Mmmm-hmmm...
Repeat that statement while someone is pointing a .357 Magnum at your head and demanding your wallet.
The only force here is that applied by the DOJ.
Baloney. Microsoft also forced numerous companies to either be subsumed by them or be forced out of the game (WebTV, Hotmail, DR-DOS, Netscape, etc. etc. etc.). My Lord, they even had Intel majorly worried, incredibly enough. If you try to claim Microsoft doesn't use "moral force" (to use that giddy Libertarian term), then your credibility is at around null.
Just because someone is in government does not make them inherently an abuser of "moral force"--and, conversely, just because someone is NOT in government does not make them incapable or unwilling to do so, either.
Microsoft has no guns and no laws to compel people to obey, only the free judgement of the rational individuals who freely trade with them, everyone from the home PC user to megacorporations like Compaq and IBM. No-one has ever compelled you to trade with MS, you have always done do freely - it is a central fact that no-one has the right to buy whatever they want, only what they are offered for sale.
Right. Uh-huh. Now just TRY and get along WITHOUT using Microsoft products in the corporate workplace. Just TRY to see how far you make it. Your customers will abandon you, because you're incapable of opening even the simplest MS-Works document when they communicate with you. If things get worse, soon your Mac/Linux/Sun box will be unable to communicate with the other computers because they're using MS-TCP...thus cutting you off from the 90% of desktop computers in the workplace that are running Windows.
This is why we HAVE antitrust law!
Jeez...
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
I'd say it's fascinating to look at variance in OS use, period. Look at Macs, for example: they have something like 30%-40% of the market in Switzerland still, but are clinging to their position in Germany and Austria (something like 2%-3% of the markets there). Go figure.
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
So what? Think about it. Most people outside of the Linux world (and outside of Europe) have pretty much only heard of Red Hat. SuSE isn't too well known outside of Europe, where it already has a strong presence. If anything, I think it's pretty clever on their part--steal some thunder from RH. I don't think that they are trying to deliberately harm RH's IPO, just trying to make it known that there are viable (semi-)commercial alternatives.
In a way, it's pretty ironic (no, not in the Alanis Morrisette sense) to hear people moaning about RH getting slammed by SuSE. It wasn't too long ago that everyone slammed RH for being the "Microsoft of Linux"...
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
bEcoz itz reel kewl d00d. :-)
Seriously, it's an abbreviation. Stands for "Gesellschaft für Software- und Systementwicklung mbH", which means "Company for Software and Systems Developemt, Inc." or something like that.
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
North American mirror (VA Research, SuSE 6.0)
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/6.1/
SuSE's FTP server in Germany (SuSE 6.1)
Otherwise look at http://www.suse.de/e/ftp.html for mirrors, etc.
Enjoy. :-)
Ye Olde Webdesigner
Ah, well. I guess you could take that view, but the sad part is that the Amiga is barely hanging on for life. Sad, really--I remember a friend's 500 with surround sound, 3D and so on, while I was clunking with a Mac IIcx (circa 1991). Hardly to be compared... :-/
Just goes to show that you should never trust Commodore with anything. At least not for very long. :P
Simple. Pronounce it like this:
zoo- zah
At least that's how it's done in German. You can also say "Susie", if you want, since "Suse" is just a German nickname for "Susanne" (that's the literal translation of the name).
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner
zoo -zah
At least that's the German pronunciation. I'm sure you can get away with calling it "Susie", since that's what the name means in German anyway (Suse is a nickname for "Susanne").
cya
Ye Olde Webdesigner