Cocoa OR Carbon - you don't actually need to choose. You can use both - if you have lots of old Mac code (I assume this isn't the case) then Carbon has a lot of offer. You can write new applications with it but this is a reworking of the old Macintosh Toolbox, so it isn't the most productive environment available (though Apple have made sure that everything works well in the developer environment).
Java, if you're using Java and Java Swing - you're not using the Cocoa environment at all. Programs written here are just like those written on other platforms. These programs are portable to other Java2 SE implementations. That's the point.
Cocoa, is written in Objective-C and "bridged" to Java2. (Java is actually based on the Objective-C programming model - so says Sun's Java Whitepaper, so it's quite a natural match) You can program against Cocoa in both Java2 and Objective-C.
A word on Objective-C, if you know C and you understand OO then you can learn Objective-C in an afternoon. Objective-C is C with OO - nothing more. Where C++ is C with everything including the kitchen sink and loses the essance of C (small is good) Objective-C is simple like C, and adds very little to the base language. Because Objective-C is based on ANSI C it can also be added to C++; this is known as Objective-C++. You might want to use Objective-C++ if you want to reuse existing C++ code (a good reason).
I think it's worth stating again, Objective-C is easy to learn, is available where GCC is (pretty much everywhere) and is a small programming language that is very productive. Personally I think this is worth the afternoon you'll spend learning it. The syntax of Objective-C is simple and elegant (unlike that of C++). Objective-C is not strongly typed like Java, and considers the "nil" object to be able to respond to any message (it simply returns nil). These two aspects make for much cleaner, simplier looking code. And it's real - big applications have been written with Objective-C - put simply: "It worked for them, it can work for you".
So if you're totally new the programming the Mac, I'd advise you to concentrate on Cocoa with Objective-C, learning the Cocoa framework is the big part of the effort, not Objective-C. You'll find that Objective-C makes the job (of learning those frameworks) much easier. This is the most productive development environment there is on any platform.
If you need to use Java2, feel free - either using normal Java2 technologies like Swing that'll run on other platforms that support Java2 SE. You can also use Java2 to write to the Cocoa frameworks, and this can be worthwhile if you have a reasonable amount of Java2 code you wish to use.
If you need C++ then Objective-C++ is perfect, you can use existing C++ code in your Cocoa projects. You can also mix Java2 in, in the normal way. Again useful if you want to leverage existing code.
Cocoa and Carbon can also be mixed more easily in the current release, this is especially useful when you want to make significant extentions to existing Macintosh applications using the more productive development environment of Cocoa.
Also of note is Apple's WebObjects, the current release is 100% Java2 and provides the ability to write web based applications, Java2 client applications and applets and also Cocoa/EOF applications that have significantly easier database access through EOF. (EOF uses JDBC to connect to the database so support for modern RDBMSs shouldn't present a problem).
Well there seem to be a lot of confusion about Apple and the Intel chip set. OPENSTEP for Mach (aka NeXTSTEP) ran on serveral processors, Mac OS X is a reworking of that OS (lot's of new stuff to be sure - but the basic design is unchanged, Mach Kernel with a BSD Unix adaptor, and a custom window manager - in OPENSTEP that was Display PostScript in Mac OS X that's Quartz: a system based on PDF, OpenGL and QuickTime, you could think of it as "Display Acrobat" with extentions for OpenGL and QuickTime)
Now given that this ran on Intel, Sparc, et al. It makes sense to keep those ports up to date, so IF you decide that your choice of CPU is no longer the best you can switch. There are of course a couple of flies in that ointment - none of the existing software is complied for anything other than PowerPC (everything needs to be recompiled - doable but Apple would need developers aboard, most notably Microsoft) and classic won't work (that doesn't seem fixable, but never say never - old Mac OS was originally a 68000 product).
But this is a "get out of jail free card" Apple aren't in this position yet, moving to Intel would hurt the performance of many tools on the Mac - there isn't a business case for it. Also getting Microsoft to come along might be hard - I can imagine Apple porting Mac OS X onto Intel would make Microsoft very jumpy.
Now for Apple to have this option, but not keep it "ready to go" would be stupid - it doesn't need many engineers to keep it upto date. This is a good thing(tm) that Apple have considered this kind of "what if" and have a workable plan. So as a Mac user you should feel more relaxed - plans like this mean that Mac's future is assured, no matter who's inside. (After all, if it works like a Mac, smells like a Mac, and has an Apple Badge - who cares what logo is painted on the CPU?)
But tomorrow? It'll still be PowerPC.
(Trivia: the first editions of NeXTSTEP actually shipped on IBM's early RS/6000, the machine that introduced the POWER architecture that later became PowerPC)
Oh okay - I must admit, I've not actually used that MS mouse - I use a "Pro Mouse", but I don't use a laptop much. I remember my old Microsoft mouse was quite good (the original intellimouse). With my rather aged PowerBook (a G3) I use an old NeXT mouse - that really annoys some classic Mac heads!
Yeah the Pro Mouse is cool (mine is the old style black one - matches the Pro Keyboard I got!)
Simple - the device it too deep. When you're making something as skinny as a PowerBook it just isn't an option anymore. Unless you make the ball really small then it's a pain to use.
I think of all the bad options for pointing devices on laptops the trackpad is the least bad, but really they all leave much to be desired.
If you like your PC mouse then take it to the Mac if it's a USB one chances are it'll work (and all the buttons). Mac system software understands multibutton mice, it only that the Mac ships with a single button one.
Oh and for completeness Microsoft's keyboards work fine too. (Go to "MacTopia" on Microsoft's site check out their hardware support for the Mac)
Also have a look at the "thinking mouse" for Macs - enough buttons for anyone I think.
Aren't you forgetting this is a laptop we're talking about?!
Anyway - when I use a laptop I always carry a mouse in my pocket anyway. Macs support multibutton mice, even stuff like wheels. Really, just put a Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer in your pocket - what's the problem?
(That isn't a random choice of Mouse either, it's got a foolish number of buttons, is silver to match the PowerBook, it optical, cos you'll be using it on all kinds of surfaces, and it's Microsoft because: a) they make nice mice and b) it drives Macheads nuts c) it is dissarms Windows weenies who try and claim you're a biggot! - A TOTAL win)
Well for a start the Cocoa libraries aren't open source, nor are the Carbon ones, and you can forget classic!
So no that stuff CAN'T run on OS X on Intel. Aqua isn't going to work either (though I don't see that matters given the above).
However what IS open source can be (has been) ported onto Intel. That's called "Darwin" (a stupid name to be sure). It works and is complete, this gives you a full Unix (of the BSD style) with compilers and lots of toys. There is stuff you'd probably not expect there too - how about a free mpeg4 steaming server? (I know!)
To this you can add X-Windows, and a WindowManager of your choice (personally I like WindowMaker). Now if you want a OS X experience take a look at GNUstep - an open source implementation of the OpenStep API and tool set (Cocoa is based on this). I don't know if anyone has done this yet (but it seems like an obvious thing to do - so I'd not be suprised).
If you're really into this idea - take a look at Apple's Darwin pages, and www.dawinfo.org and www.gnustep.org.
No, the BSD layer hasn't been "changed" for the PowerPC - it's written in C, it's compiled for PowerPC but that's quite different!
Actually there is a lot of the system that is only available as binaries (hence PPC only) AND OS X lack drivers for a stock i586 clone.
As for Apple releasing it for Intel, that seems unlikely at this point. Apple need to keep selling Macs and OS X and the "iApps" are it's way of doing that.
As for an Intel version of the Mac, Why would you want such a beast? It'll be as closed as a Mac, but have a Intel chip in it! At present the PowerPC is faster than the Pentium for the things Macs gets used for (because mostly of AltiVec). Sure the Pentium is fast at some other tasks but those tend to not be the ones that are important to Mac users. As an example iMovie and iDVD lean very hard on the AltiVec and would be much slower on a Pentium system (iDVD in particular).
Macs aren't a expensive as they used to be and it is home of the best Unix out there - why not give it a try on a Mac?
Sorry I don't agree - wish I could. Quality of a "product" (that's in quotes - I don't see Linux as a "product" now, Red Hat Linux or Mandrake THAT's a product)
OSS isn't always the best thing for the business case - and GPL really isn't. But why does that matter? Developers who contribute to OSS or use GPL often don't care. They want to create good software - usually because THEY NEED IT. GPL and OSS have proved an effective way to "scratch that itch". Nothing wrong with that, but not ALWAYS a good way to create a business.
This isn't just about how good your software is, if business teaches us anything it should be that. No often keeping a method how something is done secret is a good business move. Sometimes it isn't. I mean if I were trying to start some fancy new Internet service, I might well make the client OSS or even GPL - I want that the spread and expand the market here it makes sense. But if I have something like an OS that millions of users rely on - I might not want to allow others to clone it. (Well in the case of GPL they don't even need to change anything!)
I agree that OSS makes robust products, but as for being the best thing for making money - not always. Of course I totally reject Microsoft's arguments about the GPL too - if as a developer you want to make sure that everyone can always change the "product" (there's those quotes again) then GPL is the way to go.
Actually I used to work in the games industry (okay that was quite sometime ago) so, yeah I know how much it costs.
But you're forgetting that once you've written it, it's done almost all of your costs are done then. Pressing the DVDs, making the boxes doesn't cost much at all. The market is huge. BUT there is something you're forgetting - Microsost CHARGE all the other developers to get their game onto the XBox. This doesn't cost Microsoft a dime, and they make money on ever one sold.
Honestly this is how the console business works - that's why consoles are cheap. This isn't just how Microsoft's XBox works it's the same for Nintendo and Sony.
Yeah, that's a good point - time has erroded the bargain nature of the XBox.
Mind you, if that's true (and I think it is) - then why bother to put Linux on it at all? Perhaps it's time to forget about Linux on the XBox. Afterall what's the point?
And no, I don't want to play Halo that bad either!
Actually I don't agree with you. What MS is worried about is that people will buy XBox and then never buy anything else for it (from MS). XBox looks like a sweet deal because it is - it's sold cheaper than it can be made. The rub is that they make up the money on the games (after all how much does a game ACTUALLY cost to make?). This isn't a new idea (what MS didn't "innovate" this idea - well imagine that) it's called "Razer Blade" marketing.
If I were buying an XBox I'd put Linux on it and use it for something, (webserver, MP3 Jukebox, simple wp/email, whatever) I might even buy more than 1 - it's cheaper than buying something else. But then I'm not buying any games so MS is just making a loss. Microsoft is afraid of people like me (in present company I'm tempted to say people like us). And there is a lot of people like me, who don't want an XBox console, but are quite happy to pay less for a webserver or whatever.
Before all the MS weenies call me a hacker, or criminal and want to burn down my house - I'm not thinking about anything illegal, I'm just considering buying a product and tinkering with it for MY OWN USE. There's nothing wrong in that.
You're kidding right? Sure they want to make it cheaper, but they are really worried that someone will turn it into something else (a Linux box, for example).
If that happens on a large scale they're really in trouble.
Oh well, seems clear I won't be buying one now! (until it's worked around at least)
So did they put the document there (where it instantly got slashdotted out of existance) on purpose? They can say: "hey we're open" but actually we can't read it and can't properly make comments?
Just a thought. Of course trying to figure out what someone who'll standardise on Windows will do is probably rather hard (random stupidity is hard to track).
Oh well I suppose Bill needs to sell it to someone, as fewer and fewer of us in Europe are buying it!
CTS is caused by the (SPELLING ALERT) Carpal Tunnels swelling after being made sore by being repeatedly rubbed by the tendons. ANYTHING that pushes the together is going to make it worse!
The BEST thing to do is NOT TYPE! I know it's difficult, but you can quickly do real damage.
Now firstly - you can help to stop yourself from getting CTS (there other kinds of RSI) by not leaning on your wrists when you type, of you can get a desk without a sharp corner at the edge that's good too. The worst thing for CTS is the mouse - (probably true for other RSIs) the repeated action of clicking coupled with the odd postures you get into (arm outstreched clicking something on the extreem right) make the mouse even worse than typing.
Well actually this seems like a "Good Thing"(tm) I admit that I don't like the 24Hour thing (seems a bit stupid actually) but the price seems fine (if you could keep it) cheaper would be better of course.
Personally I like the idea - as long as the format is open (I don't want to see this as another MS Format for them to beat us over the head with) - downloading a movie is quite a cool idea. For them it seems pretty cool, I get it from their servers, no cutting it onto plastic, putting it in a box, driving it to the store, where the store have it sit on their shelf for a while. No the ecomomics seem to make this the way to go.
But there needs to be some way of making sure WB (or whoever) makes their $s, personally I have no problem with that. But this IS going to happen with or without them - I think they need to turn it in to a business. Maybe somekind of "monthy membership"? As we're all aware in this "all you can eat", there is only so much anyone can eat (download speed and to a lesser extent drive space).
Of course this could lead to one less reason to move from my Mac (but that's okay - I like it here)! Oh, and an excuse to get a "wide aspect" Mac, imagine Cinema HD Display.
Now if someone can figure out how to download popcorn and Coke!
With respect, I don't think you and your friends are the people the ariticle is talking about! You say they are all developers, not office workers (I know developers work in offices, but we don't outnumber the suits - unless you work in Software Development {unless of course we're talking about IBM} or some other "IT" thing).
There is simply no way the auther has hard numbers like this from any credable source. Linux is classically difficult to track, I download a copy, cut it onto CDs and install it on 50 machines, how many installations does that look like? 1? 50? None at all?! Who knows, and who can know?
These figures are bogus nonsense! Also numbers tend to be rather meaningless. For example, consider the "known" number of PCs ( I think it runs at something like 2 for every man, woman and child on the planet ) but what does this number mean? Are we including all those Windows3.1 boxes? Are they "Windows" as we understand it today? Or come to that Macs, do original 68000 Macs qualify? Just PowerMacs? Just G3s or better? Only those running OS X? Talking about total numbers makes no sense at all!
Sorry but I can't see Linux boxes outnumbering Macs (especially if we're talking about on the desktop).
PS. I have 4 Macs, oh and an old SE on a shelf, but we're not going to count that are we? I used to have a Linux box (at home, at work the whole shebang) but I've defected.
Is it just me, or does supplying a PC without MS Office or MS Works sound even more naked than one without Windows?
For a lot of people, Windows isn't the issue - it's MS Office that's important. As Apple will tell you. If people start to get the idea that actually you can work WITHOUT MS Office, then MS will have a problem.
I think MS will be VERY upset about this - expect to see HP reverse it's decision after "talks" this MS.
WHAT! Microsoft have CLEARLY broken US Law. They bullied IBM, Apple, Netscape (... you know the list) the lied under oath, they have held back the industry and squashed innovation. We the consumer have been harmed - it's that simple. How the hell can ANYONE feel sorry for them? What are you thinking?
Now the question is (surly here on/.) is was the judge right when he said Linux (et al) would never become mainstream? I'm afraid he is right (unless something is done) just look at the number of web sites with Windows only content. Or the number of books that have software - they don't even bother to say "for MS Windows", no they know if you've got a computer then it's safe to assume it a Windows running PC. And it's simply not changing. We all have platforms we think (know?) are "better" but so what? Windows is computers for most people. There is no choice you can be an oddball and be isolated or you can conform. Me? Oh I don't have a Windows running PC at present but I'm sure I will again because I *need* one (for something). What about most Linux people, I bet most run Windows part-time. That's not 'cos we like it - no choice.
Now MS did this to us they *killed* Java that should have fixed this (and before that Navigator). They did this in a way unlawful in the US (probably find here in the UK). I don't see why they should get away with it.
I'm not some kind of anti-free market nut either, this is EXACTLY the sort of problem that MUST be addressed to PROTECT the market. Microsoft cannot be allowed to be bigger than the market. There must be freedom to innovate at Microsoft's expense at present there isn't.
We're really "with it" aren't we? I run Linux at, at work (my doing) and I recommend it. But I own a Mac (WHOA!) Am I some kinda WEIRDO? Well yes, but that's not the point. Point is plenty of people don't give a damn what their computer run or how it works - so what? Mac is a fine computer, it CAN run Linux, mine runs MacOS X Server (part time) and I think it's great. People like you HURT our cause - I don't want to see a Linux only universe, where could we get ideas from?
As to the cover (the purpose if this) why not a Really nice graphic (of something) and simply the words: "Created with Linux". Or a screen shot of GIMP with the screen slightly unfinished and people (some in t-shirts & jeans, some in pyjamas, some in boxers) finishing it. Just an idea.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely:
[sender bite:self];
Yeah, looks strange, but Objective-C would only refer to self never me.
Cocoa OR Carbon - you don't actually need to choose. You can use both - if you have lots of old Mac code (I assume this isn't the case) then Carbon has a lot of offer. You can write new applications with it but this is a reworking of the old Macintosh Toolbox, so it isn't the most productive environment available (though Apple have made sure that everything works well in the developer environment).
:-)
Java, if you're using Java and Java Swing - you're not using the Cocoa environment at all. Programs written here are just like those written on other platforms. These programs are portable to other Java2 SE implementations. That's the point.
Cocoa, is written in Objective-C and "bridged" to Java2. (Java is actually based on the Objective-C programming model - so says Sun's Java Whitepaper, so it's quite a natural match) You can program against Cocoa in both Java2 and Objective-C.
A word on Objective-C, if you know C and you understand OO then you can learn Objective-C in an afternoon. Objective-C is C with OO - nothing more. Where C++ is C with everything including the kitchen sink and loses the essance of C (small is good) Objective-C is simple like C, and adds very little to the base language. Because Objective-C is based on ANSI C it can also be added to C++; this is known as Objective-C++. You might want to use Objective-C++ if you want to reuse existing C++ code (a good reason).
I think it's worth stating again, Objective-C is easy to learn, is available where GCC is (pretty much everywhere) and is a small programming language that is very productive. Personally I think this is worth the afternoon you'll spend learning it. The syntax of Objective-C is simple and elegant (unlike that of C++). Objective-C is not strongly typed like Java, and considers the "nil" object to be able to respond to any message (it simply returns nil). These two aspects make for much cleaner, simplier looking code. And it's real - big applications have been written with Objective-C - put simply: "It worked for them, it can work for you".
So if you're totally new the programming the Mac, I'd advise you to concentrate on Cocoa with Objective-C, learning the Cocoa framework is the big part of the effort, not Objective-C. You'll find that Objective-C makes the job (of learning those frameworks) much easier. This is the most productive development environment there is on any platform.
If you need to use Java2, feel free - either using normal Java2 technologies like Swing that'll run on other platforms that support Java2 SE. You can also use Java2 to write to the Cocoa frameworks, and this can be worthwhile if you have a reasonable amount of Java2 code you wish to use.
If you need C++ then Objective-C++ is perfect, you can use existing C++ code in your Cocoa projects. You can also mix Java2 in, in the normal way. Again useful if you want to leverage existing code.
Cocoa and Carbon can also be mixed more easily in the current release, this is especially useful when you want to make significant extentions to existing Macintosh applications using the more productive development environment of Cocoa.
Also of note is Apple's WebObjects, the current release is 100% Java2 and provides the ability to write web based applications, Java2 client applications and applets and also Cocoa/EOF applications that have significantly easier database access through EOF. (EOF uses JDBC to connect to the database so support for modern RDBMSs shouldn't present a problem).
I hope this helps
Okay, where's Objective-C?
Or come to that his weird brother Objective-C++?
[objC retain];
Well there seem to be a lot of confusion about Apple and the Intel chip set. OPENSTEP for Mach (aka NeXTSTEP) ran on serveral processors, Mac OS X is a reworking of that OS (lot's of new stuff to be sure - but the basic design is unchanged, Mach Kernel with a BSD Unix adaptor, and a custom window manager - in OPENSTEP that was Display PostScript in Mac OS X that's Quartz: a system based on PDF, OpenGL and QuickTime, you could think of it as "Display Acrobat" with extentions for OpenGL and QuickTime)
Now given that this ran on Intel, Sparc, et al. It makes sense to keep those ports up to date, so IF you decide that your choice of CPU is no longer the best you can switch. There are of course a couple of flies in that ointment - none of the existing software is complied for anything other than PowerPC (everything needs to be recompiled - doable but Apple would need developers aboard, most notably Microsoft) and classic won't work (that doesn't seem fixable, but never say never - old Mac OS was originally a 68000 product).
But this is a "get out of jail free card" Apple aren't in this position yet, moving to Intel would hurt the performance of many tools on the Mac - there isn't a business case for it. Also getting Microsoft to come along might be hard - I can imagine Apple porting Mac OS X onto Intel would make Microsoft very jumpy.
Now for Apple to have this option, but not keep it "ready to go" would be stupid - it doesn't need many engineers to keep it upto date. This is a good thing(tm) that Apple have considered this kind of "what if" and have a workable plan. So as a Mac user you should feel more relaxed - plans like this mean that Mac's future is assured, no matter who's inside. (After all, if it works like a Mac, smells like a Mac, and has an Apple Badge - who cares what logo is painted on the CPU?)
But tomorrow? It'll still be PowerPC.
(Trivia: the first editions of NeXTSTEP actually shipped on IBM's early RS/6000, the machine that introduced the POWER architecture that later became PowerPC)
Oh okay - I must admit, I've not actually used that MS mouse - I use a "Pro Mouse", but I don't use a laptop much. I remember my old Microsoft mouse was quite good (the original intellimouse). With my rather aged PowerBook (a G3) I use an old NeXT mouse - that really annoys some classic Mac heads!
Yeah the Pro Mouse is cool (mine is the old style black one - matches the Pro Keyboard I got!)
Simple - the device it too deep. When you're making something as skinny as a PowerBook it just isn't an option anymore. Unless you make the ball really small then it's a pain to use.
I think of all the bad options for pointing devices on laptops the trackpad is the least bad, but really they all leave much to be desired.
If you like your PC mouse then take it to the Mac if it's a USB one chances are it'll work (and all the buttons). Mac system software understands multibutton mice, it only that the Mac ships with a single button one.
Oh and for completeness Microsoft's keyboards work fine too. (Go to "MacTopia" on Microsoft's site check out their hardware support for the Mac)
Also have a look at the "thinking mouse" for Macs - enough buttons for anyone I think.
Aren't you forgetting this is a laptop we're talking about?!
Anyway - when I use a laptop I always carry a mouse in my pocket anyway. Macs support multibutton mice, even stuff like wheels. Really, just put a Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer in your pocket - what's the problem?
(That isn't a random choice of Mouse either, it's got a foolish number of buttons, is silver to match the PowerBook, it optical, cos you'll be using it on all kinds of surfaces, and it's Microsoft because: a) they make nice mice and b) it drives Macheads nuts c) it is dissarms Windows weenies who try and claim you're a biggot! - A TOTAL win)
Well for a start the Cocoa libraries aren't open source, nor are the Carbon ones, and you can forget classic!
:-)
So no that stuff CAN'T run on OS X on Intel. Aqua isn't going to work either (though I don't see that matters given the above).
However what IS open source can be (has been) ported onto Intel. That's called "Darwin" (a stupid name to be sure). It works and is complete, this gives you a full Unix (of the BSD style) with compilers and lots of toys. There is stuff you'd probably not expect there too - how about a free mpeg4 steaming server? (I know!)
To this you can add X-Windows, and a WindowManager of your choice (personally I like WindowMaker). Now if you want a OS X experience take a look at GNUstep - an open source implementation of the OpenStep API and tool set (Cocoa is based on this). I don't know if anyone has done this yet (but it seems like an obvious thing to do - so I'd not be suprised).
If you're really into this idea - take a look at Apple's Darwin pages, and www.dawinfo.org and www.gnustep.org.
Hope this helps
No, the BSD layer hasn't been "changed" for the PowerPC - it's written in C, it's compiled for PowerPC but that's quite different!
Actually there is a lot of the system that is only available as binaries (hence PPC only) AND OS X lack drivers for a stock i586 clone.
As for Apple releasing it for Intel, that seems unlikely at this point. Apple need to keep selling Macs and OS X and the "iApps" are it's way of doing that.
As for an Intel version of the Mac, Why would you want such a beast? It'll be as closed as a Mac, but have a Intel chip in it! At present the PowerPC is faster than the Pentium for the things Macs gets used for (because mostly of AltiVec). Sure the Pentium is fast at some other tasks but those tend to not be the ones that are important to Mac users. As an example iMovie and iDVD lean very hard on the AltiVec and would be much slower on a Pentium system (iDVD in particular).
Macs aren't a expensive as they used to be and it is home of the best Unix out there - why not give it a try on a Mac?
Sorry I don't agree - wish I could. Quality of a "product" (that's in quotes - I don't see Linux as a "product" now, Red Hat Linux or Mandrake THAT's a product)
OSS isn't always the best thing for the business case - and GPL really isn't. But why does that matter? Developers who contribute to OSS or use GPL often don't care. They want to create good software - usually because THEY NEED IT. GPL and OSS have proved an effective way to "scratch that itch". Nothing wrong with that, but not ALWAYS a good way to create a business.
This isn't just about how good your software is, if business teaches us anything it should be that. No often keeping a method how something is done secret is a good business move. Sometimes it isn't. I mean if I were trying to start some fancy new Internet service, I might well make the client OSS or even GPL - I want that the spread and expand the market here it makes sense. But if I have something like an OS that millions of users rely on - I might not want to allow others to clone it. (Well in the case of GPL they don't even need to change anything!)
I agree that OSS makes robust products, but as for being the best thing for making money - not always. Of course I totally reject Microsoft's arguments about the GPL too - if as a developer you want to make sure that everyone can always change the "product" (there's those quotes again) then GPL is the way to go.
Actually I used to work in the games industry (okay that was quite sometime ago) so, yeah I know how much it costs.
But you're forgetting that once you've written it, it's done almost all of your costs are done then. Pressing the DVDs, making the boxes doesn't cost much at all. The market is huge. BUT there is something you're forgetting - Microsost CHARGE all the other developers to get their game onto the XBox. This doesn't cost Microsoft a dime, and they make money on ever one sold.
Honestly this is how the console business works - that's why consoles are cheap. This isn't just how Microsoft's XBox works it's the same for Nintendo and Sony.
Yeah, that's a good point - time has erroded the bargain nature of the XBox.
Mind you, if that's true (and I think it is) - then why bother to put Linux on it at all? Perhaps it's time to forget about Linux on the XBox. Afterall what's the point?
And no, I don't want to play Halo that bad either!
Actually I don't agree with you. What MS is worried about is that people will buy XBox and then never buy anything else for it (from MS). XBox looks like a sweet deal because it is - it's sold cheaper than it can be made. The rub is that they make up the money on the games (after all how much does a game ACTUALLY cost to make?). This isn't a new idea (what MS didn't "innovate" this idea - well imagine that) it's called "Razer Blade" marketing.
If I were buying an XBox I'd put Linux on it and use it for something, (webserver, MP3 Jukebox, simple wp/email, whatever) I might even buy more than 1 - it's cheaper than buying something else. But then I'm not buying any games so MS is just making a loss. Microsoft is afraid of people like me (in present company I'm tempted to say people like us). And there is a lot of people like me, who don't want an XBox console, but are quite happy to pay less for a webserver or whatever.
Before all the MS weenies call me a hacker, or criminal and want to burn down my house - I'm not thinking about anything illegal, I'm just considering buying a product and tinkering with it for MY OWN USE. There's nothing wrong in that.
Of course I also understand MS want to stop me!
You're kidding right? Sure they want to make it cheaper, but they are really worried that someone will turn it into something else (a Linux box, for example).
If that happens on a large scale they're really in trouble.
Oh well, seems clear I won't be buying one now! (until it's worked around at least)
So did they put the document there (where it instantly got slashdotted out of existance) on purpose? They can say: "hey we're open" but actually we can't read it and can't properly make comments?
Just a thought. Of course trying to figure out what someone who'll standardise on Windows will do is probably rather hard (random stupidity is hard to track).
Oh well I suppose Bill needs to sell it to someone, as fewer and fewer of us in Europe are buying it!
CTS is caused by the (SPELLING ALERT) Carpal Tunnels swelling after being made sore by being repeatedly rubbed by the tendons. ANYTHING that pushes the together is going to make it worse!
The BEST thing to do is NOT TYPE! I know it's difficult, but you can quickly do real damage.
Now firstly - you can help to stop yourself from getting CTS (there other kinds of RSI) by not leaning on your wrists when you type, of you can get a desk without a sharp corner at the edge that's good too. The worst thing for CTS is the mouse - (probably true for other RSIs) the repeated action of clicking coupled with the odd postures you get into (arm outstreched clicking something on the extreem right) make the mouse even worse than typing.
Well actually this seems like a "Good Thing"(tm) I admit that I don't like the 24Hour thing (seems a bit stupid actually) but the price seems fine (if you could keep it) cheaper would be better of course.
Personally I like the idea - as long as the format is open (I don't want to see this as another MS Format for them to beat us over the head with) - downloading a movie is quite a cool idea. For them it seems pretty cool, I get it from their servers, no cutting it onto plastic, putting it in a box, driving it to the store, where the store have it sit on their shelf for a while. No the ecomomics seem to make this the way to go.
But there needs to be some way of making sure WB (or whoever) makes their $s, personally I have no problem with that. But this IS going to happen with or without them - I think they need to turn it in to a business. Maybe somekind of "monthy membership"? As we're all aware in this "all you can eat", there is only so much anyone can eat (download speed and to a lesser extent drive space).
Of course this could lead to one less reason to move from my Mac (but that's okay - I like it here)! Oh, and an excuse to get a "wide aspect" Mac, imagine Cinema HD Display.
Now if someone can figure out how to download popcorn and Coke!
With respect, I don't think you and your friends are the people the ariticle is talking about! You say they are all developers, not office workers (I know developers work in offices, but we don't outnumber the suits - unless you work in Software Development {unless of course we're talking about IBM} or some other "IT" thing).
There is simply no way the auther has hard numbers like this from any credable source. Linux is classically difficult to track, I download a copy, cut it onto CDs and install it on 50 machines, how many installations does that look like? 1? 50? None at all?! Who knows, and who can know?
These figures are bogus nonsense! Also numbers tend to be rather meaningless. For example, consider the "known" number of PCs ( I think it runs at something like 2 for every man, woman and child on the planet ) but what does this number mean? Are we including all those Windows3.1 boxes? Are they "Windows" as we understand it today? Or come to that Macs, do original 68000 Macs qualify? Just PowerMacs? Just G3s or better? Only those running OS X? Talking about total numbers makes no sense at all!
Sorry but I can't see Linux boxes outnumbering Macs (especially if we're talking about on the desktop).
PS. I have 4 Macs, oh and an old SE on a shelf, but we're not going to count that are we? I used to have a Linux box (at home, at work the whole shebang) but I've defected.
Is it just me, or does supplying a PC without MS Office or MS Works sound even more naked than one without Windows?
For a lot of people, Windows isn't the issue - it's MS Office that's important. As Apple will tell you. If people start to get the idea that actually you can work WITHOUT MS Office, then MS will have a problem.
I think MS will be VERY upset about this - expect to see HP reverse it's decision after "talks" this MS.
WHAT! Microsoft have CLEARLY broken US Law. They bullied IBM, Apple, Netscape (... you know the list) the lied under oath, they have held back the industry and squashed innovation. We the consumer have been harmed - it's that simple. How the hell can ANYONE feel sorry for them? What are you thinking?
/.) is was the judge right when he said Linux (et al) would never become mainstream? I'm afraid he is right (unless something is done) just look at the number of web sites with Windows only content. Or the number of books that have software - they don't even bother to say "for MS Windows", no they know if you've got a computer then it's safe to assume it a Windows running PC. And it's simply not changing. We all have platforms we think (know?) are "better" but so what? Windows is computers for most people. There is no choice you can be an oddball and be isolated or you can conform. Me? Oh I don't have a Windows running PC at present but I'm sure I will again because I *need* one (for something). What about most Linux people, I bet most run Windows part-time. That's not 'cos we like it - no choice.
Now the question is (surly here on
Now MS did this to us they *killed* Java that should have fixed this (and before that Navigator). They did this in a way unlawful in the US (probably find here in the UK). I don't see why they should get away with it.
I'm not some kind of anti-free market nut either, this is EXACTLY the sort of problem that MUST be addressed to PROTECT the market. Microsoft cannot be allowed to be bigger than the market. There must be freedom to innovate at Microsoft's expense at present there isn't.
We're really "with it" aren't we? I run Linux at, at work (my doing) and I recommend it. But I own a Mac (WHOA!) Am I some kinda WEIRDO? Well yes, but that's not the point. Point is plenty of people don't give a damn what their computer run or how it works - so what? Mac is a fine computer, it CAN run Linux, mine runs MacOS X Server (part time) and I think it's great. People like you HURT our cause - I don't want to see a Linux only universe, where could we get ideas from?
As to the cover (the purpose if this) why not a Really nice graphic (of something) and simply the words: "Created with Linux". Or a screen shot of GIMP with the screen slightly unfinished and people (some in t-shirts & jeans, some in pyjamas, some in boxers) finishing it. Just an idea.