Hello? Non-commercial? If you pay for it, that's commerce. Don't kid yourself - they might take away sales from other commercial packages, but that doesn't exclude them from the bunch.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, I agree. So, if I went to BestBuy and wanted to buy a PPC version of Debian - would I go to the Mac section? I guess so, but wouldn't it be keen if eventually there were entire Linux sections in places like CompUSA?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
What would you drag in? Anyway, that's not the the integrated means. It means that all of the tools you need to program with (at least, the ones they think you need) are integrated into one system (in this case CodeWarrior). It's just a nice way of saying "Hey, you don't need to ALT-TAB to the other x-term to compile".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
There's something about Carmack and Id that I just can't put my finger on. He's not exactly charismatic. Not in the way of, say, Steve Jobs anyhow. Maybe it's just a down-to-earth good natured sort of thing - the man just makes sense to me.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The Esperanto stuff is very true, although I highly doubt that ANYONE, let alone the US, is going to adopt it anytime soon. If there is ever a "world language" it will be one that slowly permeates through the world. There's no way that any country will decide to convert by choice. And, to be quite honest - I think the most likely candidate for that right now is English. I'm not saying that because I speak English, or because I'm a typical American, but because right now it's essentially the default language for speaking in the international business community. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best thing - but right now it's what we're working with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Ok, let's be honest with ourselves - I know that you're just trying to make a point about their ad tactics, but would you ever really have bought something from them anyway? I mean, face it: most of the people here at/. are Linux-users and, as a general rule, we don't pay for most of our software.
I think my point here is that the/. crowd wasn't their target anyway. They're looking to snag corporate buyers who want a product that they can sell their boses on. This isn't about quality - it's about viability. And, unfortunately, the two just don't go hand in hand in the corporate world.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
They've already said publicly that, if they really wanted to, they could've continued on the Mac platform. The point is that is was easier to do it on the Intel platform because WAY more specs were available, so that's what they went with. They didn't blame it on Apple, so much as say "Hey, our plans just don't work out together".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yes, that's true - most of them require a keyboard though, which is something that just doesn't belong on my telephone. My point is that a phone shouldn't have to be a computer/browser. It can just be a phone, and be good at what it does. If I want wireless access, I'll use a palmtop machine AND a phone (or a combination thereof)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Why would anyone want to use the internet on their cell-phone? Nevermind: The idea itself is a great one. I'd love to use the internet on my cell-phone if it was even remotely usuable. Maybe with this sort of teaming, we can get a combo and have decent wireless communications with a PalmPilot (which has a big enough screen to be useful), but GOD I wish they'd stop pretending that telephones could ever be good web-browsers.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It's not that you don't have a point (because you do), but I'd bet that us/.ers could probably make a correlation between just about anything and Open/Closed Source.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Except that, being genetically engineered, the Monsanto plants might be more marketable than the normal type. In this situation, the public demands that the farmers produce these exceptional veggies and the farmers, to remain in business, have to plant them. After all, who wants to buy a 5" tomato when you can have a 25" one?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Hmm, I don't want to sound like a MS advocate here, but maybe it's not a bad thing that they aren't using a version number. Think about it. None of the "average users" out there want to deal with 1.blah.blah or 0.x.x. Microsoft did lots of marketing research in this area - let's take the hint. It's much easier, they discovered, to just remember a year, which coincided with a release data (sometimes). I think putting the identifier in front of the name is a little strange, but who knows - maybe it'll catch on.
I think, especially, the teams that get the most outside attention should develop alternative version schemes (keep the numbers, but have a second system for release names). It just adds to the polished effect. It bothers a lot of people that most Linux software is pre-1.0. You and I know that it's not the same as pre-1.0 in the Win-World, but aren't we trying to gain support from the outside now?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Great - are you going to write it? Seriously, a browser is a pretty big project. And Opera is better than most... KDE's browser is decent, but no good for serious use yet. Mozilla could become usuable, but it needs some serious work. I think that Opera may just be worth the price - I sure don't need to wait.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well you might be right and then again, you might not. I think that it's a little early to be saying that Mozilla is going to kick their asses... After all Mozilla, as much as I think they've got the right idea, is basically unusable right now. I think the MozTeam has quite a ways to go before they're in any place to threaten anyone.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Wow, I feel pretty silly. I must've re-read your post about a dozen times trying to figure out what you were saying... But yes, ironically, it should've been ==.
Oh wait! Unless I was programming in BASIC or Pascal! Then it would be =. Unless I really meant an assignment operator, and then (in Pascal) it would be more desktop space:= more productivity. Or, if I were doing it in Intel assembly it would be...
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
That's a pretty weak resolution. It's better than a lot of Monitors (and it's a flatscreen) but I'll keep my 21" not-so-flatscreen that looks keen at 1600x1200 - I think every programmer out there will agree that more desktop space = more productivity. And Linux isn't too great with the multiheaded display scene yet.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Sure, workers may not get the choice about what OS they use, but their bosses do (or their IT people, or whomever) and when it comes down to it, it's their decision to make anyway. If I want my employees using BeOS (for whatever reason) then they'll use BeOS. If it's a bad business decision then it's my fault, but it's still definitely my choice.
So what if Linux replaced Windows in the business niche? Then the workers would be stuck with Linux just like their stuck with Windows now. The only distinction is that you think you're entitled to say that Linux is a better choice for them, and therefor, a better thing to be stuck with. Well, I've got news for you, there are certain things that Windows does that I prefer over Linux (and I'm a hardcore Linux user).
I'm not saying that Windows is better than Linux - not hardly - but I don't see how replacing Windows with Linux somehow gives workers more "choice". Their bosses still decide what goes on their systems. Don't blame Microsoft for what the business world does.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Hello? Notice anything about your analogy?? 8th graders are immature. They have low self-confidence and need reassurance and peptalks from people they look up to. Sometimes (when I read AC posts) it seems like the Linux community is a bunch of 8th graders, but I know that's not the case - we shouldn't belittle ourselves and our operating system by making it a battle with MS and a personal vendetta. Let's keep it down to earth, okay?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
How can you say "We have to fight Microsoft to keep the choices open" and be serious? Hello? The choices are open. Hell, there are more choices now then I can ever remember (good choices anyway). Who gives a flying fuck if MS doesn't feel the same way. What can they do to us? Run us out of business? Well, sure - maybe people like RedHat might suffer at the hands of Microsoft, but Linux as a whole is invulnerable to their attacks.
We've already creative a great alternative. Microsoft doesn't have to lose for us to win - we've already won. It's not world domination but, seriously, what's the point in that? If we simply get the message out that "Linux is a viable alternative" then we've done our job - let the people decide for themselves after that.
-----------
"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."
-----------
"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."
-----------
"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 think my point here is that the /. crowd wasn't their target anyway. They're looking to snag corporate buyers who want a product that they can sell their boses on. This isn't about quality - it's about viability. And, unfortunately, the two just don't go hand in hand in the corporate world.
-----------
"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."
-----------
"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."
I think, especially, the teams that get the most outside attention should develop alternative version schemes (keep the numbers, but have a second system for release names). It just adds to the polished effect. It bothers a lot of people that most Linux software is pre-1.0. You and I know that it's not the same as pre-1.0 in the Win-World, but aren't we trying to gain support from the outside now?
-----------
"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."
Oh wait! Unless I was programming in BASIC or Pascal! Then it would be =. Unless I really meant an assignment operator, and then (in Pascal) it would be more desktop space := more productivity. Or, if I were doing it in Intel assembly it would be...
-----------
"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."
Sure, workers may not get the choice about what OS they use, but their bosses do (or their IT people, or whomever) and when it comes down to it, it's their decision to make anyway. If I want my employees using BeOS (for whatever reason) then they'll use BeOS. If it's a bad business decision then it's my fault, but it's still definitely my choice.
So what if Linux replaced Windows in the business niche? Then the workers would be stuck with Linux just like their stuck with Windows now. The only distinction is that you think you're entitled to say that Linux is a better choice for them, and therefor, a better thing to be stuck with. Well, I've got news for you, there are certain things that Windows does that I prefer over Linux (and I'm a hardcore Linux user).
I'm not saying that Windows is better than Linux - not hardly - but I don't see how replacing Windows with Linux somehow gives workers more "choice". Their bosses still decide what goes on their systems. Don't blame Microsoft for what the business world does.
-----------
"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."
We've already creative a great alternative. Microsoft doesn't have to lose for us to win - we've already won. It's not world domination but, seriously, what's the point in that? If we simply get the message out that "Linux is a viable alternative" then we've done our job - let the people decide for themselves after that.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."