Well Palm is owned by 3Com, right? I doubt very much that we'll be seeing 3Com disappear anytime soon. They just need to get a little more competetive in their sales. I would be much happier buying from them - The PalmPilot is such an incredibly usable tool. It's really been one step ahead of the game, compared to other Palmtop systems.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This is very very smart on their part. Think about it - Imagine the traffic they'll get. Thousands of people just itching to get their information from them, because now you don't have to buy the set on CDROM (or books, unless you're so inclined). And all that traffic translates into one thing. Ads. We've come to love them and they're our little way of paying for broadcast/request media.
Not like they're badly in need on money, but EB's going to make a pretty penny.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Mr. Young deserves a big pat on the back for this. Patents have been a big part of slashdot discussions in the last year and I think we all could use a little bit of reference for our arguments, rather than mindless postulation about laws we don't fully understand. Thank Steve. People like you, ESR, and Bruce Perens are the spokes that keep our community together.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
What you just said was a decent argument in favor of WINE. Seriously, if I had no opinion either way and I read it, I would've been pushed away from MainWin. The original poster, however, just said "I think WINE is better. I don't think MainWin will work as well. WINE is themeable.", so you can understand why I didn't jump through hoops to download the newest version of WINE.
I'd love to see a direct app-to-app comparison of MainWin and WINE, both using linux-compiled binaries. That would be really interesting. You may be right, of course, MainWin might really suck cheese. Or, the MainWin team might introduce a much better product to the Linux world, and we might be pleasantly suprised. I guess we'll see.
And on that note: Does this give anyone else an inkling that we might be seeing an MSIE port to Linux soon?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Okay, fair enough - maybe he has seen MainWin in action. Well, Gnubie? Have you?
Whether or not he's used the product is besides the point. The post was just a bunch of speculation as to whether or not certain features will be included in MainWin, as opposed to WINE. There was no basis for the argument or facts to back it up, just "WINE is open source, so WINE will be better". As far as I'm concerned that's not much of an argument. I like Open Source as much as the next/.'er. but it isn't the magic answer for every software product's ails. WINE has a long way to go before it'll be usuable in a general sense, and if MainWin is working alongside Microsoft on their product, then MainWin has an enormous head-start.
That said, you are correct: MainWin is not an end-user application, whereas WINE is. They can be used to server to totally seperate groups. Although, yes, WINE can be used for both:)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You've never even seen MainWin, and you're saying that Wine is better? Maybe in theory, sure, but let's be honest - Wine isn't really a viable solution except in a few (few) cases. There aren't more than a handful of programs that run flawlessly under it. And that's what a company needs to run Win32 programs under Linux - flawlessness. Anything else won't cut it, and they'd be better off using WinNT instead.
Same goes for MainWin. If they don't provide a stable system that can run just about any Windows app then they will not succeed. OpenSource won't even come into play with this - these guys are MS partners: They can produce code that's more compatible, because they probably have licenses to use the original source from MS. Don't kid yourself, they've got the upper hand. And as for customization, well I'd like my programs to work first, before I start worrying about theming, okay?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That may be true in theory, however my practical use of it says otherwise. And heck, maybe I was doing something wrong - I'd be the first to admit it if that were the case. Anyway, I don't really care who's compiler I use, as long as it's freely available and fully functional.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This is so twisted. The patent system was not built to make people money off of royalties, it was built to protect the small inventor from larger companies. This country needs to seriously rethink it's patent, and copyright, system. They're out of touch with today's technical society.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The IBM port of the JDK for Linux had compatibility issues, which made it worthless as a java compiler. Blackdown's Java 1.2 for Linux is actually really really good. I've played around with it and there are a few bugs to work out, but otherwise it's wonderful. If this is the base that Sun will be working off of, they're in good hands.
Oh, and - It's about freakin' time:)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You're absolutely correct - CompUSA has no place deciding which games my kids play. As a parent, I have a definite responsibility to make sure I know what my children are doing/watching/playing. I don't need a company to mandate this.
That said, while CompUSA has no place deciding what my children play, they definitely have a place deciding what they sell to children. It's analagous to stores selling cigarettes to minors. It's not really their responsibility to make sure kids aren't smoking, but they have no right selling my kids something objectionable.
Would you say that it's okay for Sam Goody's to sell a porno to a 12 year old? Of course not! If you did, I'd say you're a sicko. A parent depends on outlets to be responisible in what they sell. It's not a crutch for parenting, it's just assistance.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Waittaminute!! It says that John Dvorak was the first president of the United States... (GASP) You're right! ZD is censoring my history books.
I don't give a rats ass what ZiffDavis does. The only reason I posted that last message was because I hate to see people just to conclusions. I always give people/groups the benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether they'd do the same for me. It's not about censorship (well it is, but not for me), it's about what is, and isn't, lousy journalism.
Certainly they made a blunder. Possibly a large one. But I won't sit here (from a position of not having any hard facts, except what I've read here at Slashdot) and make a judgment on the people at Ziff Davis - It's just not how I operate, and I'd hope that some other people out there feel the same way.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yes, it makes sense to me, but you're still wrong. Even though violence is the media's new rag-doll, they'd drop it like a bad habit if sexual-content came into the picture. Especially since there's nothing sensational about coverage of violent games - nobody wants to see another story about what caused Columbine.
Seriously, you couldn't keep the media away if there was a store like CompUSA selling Playboy MPEGS (or something similarly profane) to underage kids. Here's the difference: Violence is disturbing, certainly, but sexuality is forbidden, and conservative groups know where their priorities lie.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
First off - let's not crucify ZD right away. It is possible that it was a mistake, not a lie. A reporter unfamiliar with the specifics of individual games could have accidentally switched the names of Half-Life and another game in the same Mature-audience genre.
Having said that I think stores like CompUSA have a very real responsibility to watch who the sell games like this to. There are certain things that kids just shouldn't be buying. There'd be WAY more outrage if the game contained sexual content, rather than violent content, but the principles of mature-viewing are the same in both cases.
Just a little food for thought.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'm sure you have a valid reason to need this e-business solution, I really am. But does anyone else out there see a lot of this e-business stuff as being purely for the sake of e-business? Lot's of people out there trying to throw their company onto the internet and become the next Amazon.
It's not that I'm against E-business. Not hardly. I think companies like Amazon and Dell have made tremendous strides in making the Internet a vital (and in Amazon's case, the only) part of their business. What I don't like to see, though, is sites who's E-business is half-assed. So I agree with the first poster. Let's write some really good e-business, OpenSource, software that can be reused. I'm up for it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yes, MTV was definitely looking for something sensational. They didn't want to run a show that would bore their audience. So does that make it okay for Shamrock to give them false sensationalism? If had said to them "everything I'm telling you is a big fat lie" they would've said "See you later kid". They weren't asking for this. They just thought they'd found someone who had a worthy story to tell.
The bottom line is that Shamrock intentionally misrepresented himself in order to get on national TV. That's so utterly pathetic, that I can't even believe anyone would go to bat for him. I'm no fan of MTV - not at all - I just think that this script-kiddie is trash and shouldn't be treated as if he had some sort of lofty goal in doing all of this.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You're saying that it was okay for him to deceive MTV because they asked for it?? You really believe that, just because his "cover-my-ass" letter said so? There's no justication for this sort of lying. It didn't serve any purpose but to give him and his script-kid buddies something to laugh about. Well he got what he wanted and then people started flaming him for it, so now he's trying to cover it up by saying, "Oh, we meant for it to be stupid".
Reality time: Shamrock was trying to look cool. He knew he was going to be on one of the most popular networks in America and he took advantage of that fact. Don't believe for a second that this was all crafted out from the beginning. Well actualy it was, but not with the intention of making MTV look bad - it was meant to make him look "3l33t".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
"We can't beat 'em, we may as well play with them."
That's possibly the worst attitude towards journalism I've ever seen. Are you serious?
So what about after you've played with them? What then? I'll tell you - then everyone who reads or sees this media that you've faked is lead to believe that it's true. This MTV special wasn't meant to be a joke for hackers, it was meant to be a story to give outsiders insight into what the life of a hacker is like. I don't have any pity for MTV for bungling it, but for you to place all of the blame on them is ridiculous. This kid lied. You can't blame the victim for being a victim.
It's the same argument over and over again: Who's fault is it when a cracker breaks into your system? Your's for leaving it insecure? Or his for breaking the law and trespassing in a private network? Only now it's "Who's fault is it when a crappy broadcast goes over? The networks for believing the people they interview? Or the interviewees for lying through their teeth and making a mockery of the whole issue?"
The entire thing makes me sick.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Did we really need Shamrock to write a letter to know that he's a punk? Come on now, I think he's more of a punk now than I did before. At least then I thought he was an honest punk. Everyone on the MTV hacker-thing was a serious script-kiddy and we all knew it - let's move on to serious news.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Let's face it - most people regard the cdc as a bunch of script-kiddies looking for some limelight. The BackOrifice software really made this worse, because it was seen, not as an admin tool, but as an application meant to propogate cracking. How does this make you feel? That is, what are your personal thoughts on the cult's activities and how do you think they should be viewed from the professional side of the industry?
Are we really prepared to call what Jane's said "radical"? Yeah, it was pretty damned cool. Yes, it was admirable. But radical? Not really. I think the truth of the matter is that we're just used to crappy journalism. Especially in the technical field where every two-bit writer thinks he's an expert on the computer industry. I applaud what Jane's did, but isn't it time we up'ed out standards?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Not like they're badly in need on money, but EB's going to make a pretty penny.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I'd love to see a direct app-to-app comparison of MainWin and WINE, both using linux-compiled binaries. That would be really interesting. You may be right, of course, MainWin might really suck cheese. Or, the MainWin team might introduce a much better product to the Linux world, and we might be pleasantly suprised. I guess we'll see.
And on that note: Does this give anyone else an inkling that we might be seeing an MSIE port to Linux soon?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Whether or not he's used the product is besides the point. The post was just a bunch of speculation as to whether or not certain features will be included in MainWin, as opposed to WINE. There was no basis for the argument or facts to back it up, just "WINE is open source, so WINE will be better". As far as I'm concerned that's not much of an argument. I like Open Source as much as the next /.'er. but it isn't the magic answer for every software product's ails. WINE has a long way to go before it'll be usuable in a general sense, and if MainWin is working alongside Microsoft on their product, then MainWin has an enormous head-start.
That said, you are correct: MainWin is not an end-user application, whereas WINE is. They can be used to server to totally seperate groups. Although, yes, WINE can be used for both :)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Same goes for MainWin. If they don't provide a stable system that can run just about any Windows app then they will not succeed. OpenSource won't even come into play with this - these guys are MS partners: They can produce code that's more compatible, because they probably have licenses to use the original source from MS. Don't kid yourself, they've got the upper hand. And as for customization, well I'd like my programs to work first, before I start worrying about theming, okay?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
"Sun is also working with the Blackdown Porting Group to bring Java2 to Linux."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Oh, and - It's about freakin' time :)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That said, while CompUSA has no place deciding what my children play, they definitely have a place deciding what they sell to children. It's analagous to stores selling cigarettes to minors. It's not really their responsibility to make sure kids aren't smoking, but they have no right selling my kids something objectionable.
Would you say that it's okay for Sam Goody's to sell a porno to a 12 year old? Of course not! If you did, I'd say you're a sicko. A parent depends on outlets to be responisible in what they sell. It's not a crutch for parenting, it's just assistance.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't give a rats ass what ZiffDavis does. The only reason I posted that last message was because I hate to see people just to conclusions. I always give people/groups the benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether they'd do the same for me. It's not about censorship (well it is, but not for me), it's about what is, and isn't, lousy journalism.
Certainly they made a blunder. Possibly a large one. But I won't sit here (from a position of not having any hard facts, except what I've read here at Slashdot) and make a judgment on the people at Ziff Davis - It's just not how I operate, and I'd hope that some other people out there feel the same way.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Seriously, you couldn't keep the media away if there was a store like CompUSA selling Playboy MPEGS (or something similarly profane) to underage kids. Here's the difference: Violence is disturbing, certainly, but sexuality is forbidden, and conservative groups know where their priorities lie.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Having said that I think stores like CompUSA have a very real responsibility to watch who the sell games like this to. There are certain things that kids just shouldn't be buying. There'd be WAY more outrage if the game contained sexual content, rather than violent content, but the principles of mature-viewing are the same in both cases.
Just a little food for thought.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's not that I'm against E-business. Not hardly. I think companies like Amazon and Dell have made tremendous strides in making the Internet a vital (and in Amazon's case, the only) part of their business. What I don't like to see, though, is sites who's E-business is half-assed. So I agree with the first poster. Let's write some really good e-business, OpenSource, software that can be reused. I'm up for it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The bottom line is that Shamrock intentionally misrepresented himself in order to get on national TV. That's so utterly pathetic, that I can't even believe anyone would go to bat for him. I'm no fan of MTV - not at all - I just think that this script-kiddie is trash and shouldn't be treated as if he had some sort of lofty goal in doing all of this.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Reality time: Shamrock was trying to look cool. He knew he was going to be on one of the most popular networks in America and he took advantage of that fact. Don't believe for a second that this was all crafted out from the beginning. Well actualy it was, but not with the intention of making MTV look bad - it was meant to make him look "3l33t".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's possibly the worst attitude towards journalism I've ever seen. Are you serious?
So what about after you've played with them? What then? I'll tell you - then everyone who reads or sees this media that you've faked is lead to believe that it's true. This MTV special wasn't meant to be a joke for hackers, it was meant to be a story to give outsiders insight into what the life of a hacker is like. I don't have any pity for MTV for bungling it, but for you to place all of the blame on them is ridiculous. This kid lied. You can't blame the victim for being a victim.
It's the same argument over and over again: Who's fault is it when a cracker breaks into your system? Your's for leaving it insecure? Or his for breaking the law and trespassing in a private network? Only now it's "Who's fault is it when a crappy broadcast goes over? The networks for believing the people they interview? Or the interviewees for lying through their teeth and making a mockery of the whole issue?"
The entire thing makes me sick.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Let's face it - most people regard the cdc as a bunch of script-kiddies looking for some limelight. The BackOrifice software really made this worse, because it was seen, not as an admin tool, but as an application meant to propogate cracking. How does this make you feel? That is, what are your personal thoughts on the cult's activities and how do you think they should be viewed from the professional side of the industry?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."