"..Which is the easier plan... to try to crack the encryption on your wireless keyboard, or to sneak a keylogger onto your system somehow? My bet is #2."
I beg to differ. #2 requires physical access to the computer. #1 doesn't require it. Once #1 becomes low-tech, we will see an explosion of abuse in that area.
True, wireless keyboard range is purpotedly small but the question is whether it is small enough. For example, if someone works near the window on the first floor, what would be the reception area. Similarly, if my neighbor has his PC next to the adjacent wall, can I pick it up?
Finally, your assessment of the wireless keyboard protocol security as "fairly secure" is outright ridiculous. As I said, we've had WAP that was designed with security in mind for devices much more powerful compared to wireless keyboards and yet it failed. Something tells me that the security algorithms behind wireless keyboards are simplistic in their design and count on obscurity as the primary factor. I am positive that it is a matter of time before we start seeing security alerts on wireless keyboards.
Not that I want to sound paranoid, but has anyone given a thought about the security of the protocol employed by wireless keyboards? I wasn't able to find any reasonable treatment of the subject on the Net.
I do however have a nagging feeling that because the signal is short-range by design, the security measures implemented within the protocol are minimal and/or naive. WEP initially looked like a very well thought out security framework and it turned out to be a disaster. Something tells me that whatever is used by wireless keyboards is not even on WEP level.
Just like we have WarSpying intercepting signal from wireless cameras, nothing in theory prevents anyone from coming up with a receiver made from RadioShack parts that intercepts wireless keyboard signal. The implications will be much more serious than a couple of teenagers oogling at someone in underwear strolling around her apartment.
Until there is an honest discussion about wireless keyboard security, I don't feel that the risk is adequately compensated by the convenience.
I find the argument flawed for a number of reasons. If we look at the trend, there are actually many more free development tools available from Microsoft compared to the past. In fact, looking specifically at CE development tools: in order to develop for Windows CE some 3-4 years ago one had:
To acquire a Visual C++ development system, and
To purchase an add-on for Windows CE development.
Nowadays, one just has to spend 15 minutes downloading eVC++ 4 for free. Same goes for Windows-oriented development. Same for dozens of other SDKs. There are ways to develop for each and every Microsoft platform using free tools from Microsoft.
What is going to happen actually, in my opinion, will be similar to the situation with development tools for.NET framework:
There will be a freely available SDK with a set of tools allowing free development for Windows Mobile 5.0 platform just like there is a free.NET SDK with a set of compilers and tools allowing developers to create.NET applications.
VS.NET 2005 will be positioned for Windows Mobile 5.0 development in the exactly same manner VS is positioned for Windows and.NET development. That is, it will not be the only tool available for such development but the sheer convenience, integration and automation will appeal to a broad segment of ISVs compelling them to purchase it instead of going with free tools.
Now on a personal note. I think, I am willing to pay $299 if this would give me a single tool that would provide coverage for all Pocket PC and Windows Mobile target platforms without the sheer madness of having to install eVC++ 3, eVC++ 4, VS 6, and VS.NET 2003 (let alone a half dozen of platform SDKs). This alone is well worth $299.;-)
I've been a long-time user of SneakEmail and I cannot praise it enough. It has exactly the required feature set and is very handy. I highly recommend it to everyone concerned about e-mail privacy and I urge people to donate to support it (it is free but donations are welcome).
Based on my experience, GoDaddy periodically sends promotions to the e-mail address registered with them. The e-mail address listed on the domain records is a different story. This one is always harvested by spammers and should be either fake or going to/dev/null.
I would like to hear how other people solve the issue with the contact info on the domain records. Using fake information comes to mind but still, maybe there is a way to handle this without everyone knowing where I leave...
The article actually tries to consider whether the law applies to software. In my opinion, this is exactly the case where it applies nicely.
You are absolutely right about small fish which would continue to exist along with the two biggest players. Remember however, that unlike hamburgers or vacuum cleaners, an operating system is a platform for other software, so considering it in isolation would be a mistake. Just imagine if my company came out with a tape recorder that would use a completely different cassette type. Can it exist in theory along the standard formats - absolutely! Would it be able to exist (esp. as a commercial entity) - probably not.
Same thing with an O/S. Unless the company itself would build a compelling application stack for an O/S, it would have to rely on ISVs to do so. Would the ISVs port their software to Amiga? You may hold me to my words: they would not. At best, they would use the compatibility layer (like POSIX API if possible). However that would make Amiga no more than an expensive Linux (or Windows) emulator. I still maintain that Amiga will have the same fate as OS/2 in that respect: a small number of commercial vendors offering aging versions of simple programs reminding of Windows 3.0 and a bunch of BBS like repositories for software maintained by a couple of enthusiasts. This will not make Amiga viable. It takes an awful lot of money to feed the company staff and to pay the rent, so a couple hundred folks that feel nostalgic about the brand name are not gonna make it. It may have some future though if Amiga secures some niche, like OS/2 did with ATMs, but I doubt it - both Windows CE and Linux are pretty aggressive in this market, already eating the lunch of a number of embedded systems.
Last but not the least is the fact that Amiga is cheerfully digging its own grave by making the OS run on expensive and proprietary hardware. I find it ironic - Sun is charging ahead making Intel (AMD actually) their 2nd platform of choice and Amiga is choosing the proprietary path...
Instead of repeating the same propaganda-style cliches, consider an average software vendor. Given the opportunity to invest in porting their software to an obscure OS running on incompatible hardware with an incompatible (to UNIX9x, Win32, Java 2,.NET) API set, how big is the chance they would go for it?
As for the OS "that fills your hard disk" - unless AmigaOS is capable of running from a 128Mb USB dongle, I really don't care whether it takes 250Mb or 10Gb on my hard drive. I use my PC to actually run software that helps me do my work, not to meditate on df output.
Finally, always remember the Law of Duality. This explains very nicely why neither AmigaOS, nor BeOS would ever enjoy significant popularity on the market.
Oh, and BTW, I really don't care about the stage GUI gets loaded at. On workstations I use the GUI so it doesn't matters and on the servers, GUI gets swapped out pretty quickly.
Let me see - yet another non-standard hardware platform and another OS with incompatible API (and screenshots that make OS/2 look pretty). Whoa - those guys are really smart! I predict them smashing success amongst those 17 aging geeks who cannot get over the fact that AmigaOS was better than Windows 2.0/286.
From the description 'for parents'
No parent wants his or her child to fall behind.
Reminds me of the salesguy in that episode with Homer Simpson buying a computer: "You don't want to buy this model. Only suckers buy those. You are not a sucker, are you?"
There are things that are both good and bad about BREW:
I absolutely hate the BREW API. Consider Windows 2.0 286 edition SDK API. Now castrate it to fit into an embedded O/S - this is pretty much what you get. Forget all you knew about device independent programming: data structures have fixed layout you are supposed to depend upon. Start dealing with bits and bytes. Add on top the compatibility hell between different BREW releases - here you go. J2ME is also an embedded platform but it is lightyears ahead of BREW.
For those liking the open-source model, BREW is not good news. Forget about distributing your software, as the only distribution channel is controlled by the provider and it is geared toward making money. To get in, one needs to at least certify the program on each applicable phone model/architecture and it costs.
Now, playing the Devil's advocate. This distribution model actually does spell good news for the developers of commercial software as they significantly limit themselves from pirating and they get rid if that pesky open-source competition eating into their profit.
I am in no position to predict the future but I would like BREW to die a horrible death. I do like the J2ME both from technical point of view and for its open distribution model.
Hmm... What share of PHP projects are using this toolkit as opposed to direct HTML rendering? Based on my personal experience, not that many (I'm yet to encounter one).
Once again, I didn't say that PHP cannot have an object model. It definitely can have such and I hope one would be provided in future releases (again, thanks to ASP.NET for raising the mark). However, ASP.NET is much much more than just a set of objects abstracting the developer from HTML. Just to name a few features:
Full-blown.NET environment with all API (as opposed to "Darn! I should've compiled SOAP into my PHP installation")
Very powerful set of client- and server-side validators (again, no HTML or JavaScript writing required).
A set of very versatile data-centric web controls making the task of displaying tabbed (or otherwise) data extremely simple.
Very nice tracing and debugging features. I especially like the automatic handling of errors in a different fashion based on whether they come from a localhost or from a remote one (In the former case, you can get a nice CLR traceback).
In my opinion, Microsofties have done a major (as in "revolutionary") step forward with ASP.NET. Other web frameworks are yet to catch up. Java has probably best chance to do so, as it already comes with a full-featured runtime environment. I think, we will see fairly soon some Java alternative to ASP.NET and I hope that PHP will eventually move into that space as well.
I've been doing ASP.NET development for relatively little time, compared to about 3 years of PHP programming (nothing of production quality though) but I have to say - this article is total BS.
It is actually quite sad to see such superficial attempts to justify an open-source product merely on the "merits" of not being produced by Microsoft. I mean, using criteria like "strong", "weak", "$$" is not what I would consider professional. I good way to compare products actually would be to get the experts to implement a relatively real-life project (like the famous Pet Store) in both languages and then compare the development time, speed, code metrics, scalability, and potential for extensions. That would be a true comparison, not the "metrics" used in the article.
Now back to personal preferences. Being a UNIX programmer with about 16 years of experience, I can assure you ASP.NET blows any other Web framework out of the water. Yes, it is that good. You get a very nice and consistent object model with full.NET power behind it. JSP and servlets shouldn't bother either as all HTML is generated transparently - in many cases you don't have to write a single line in HTML! As a result, you write less code, it is easier to maintain, with fewer opportunities for bugs or security holes. All are considered best practices in my book. I'd love to see PHP mature to the ASP.NET level but it is simply not there yet and even the attempts of PHP 5 to tackle these problems is a step in right direction, there is still a very long way to go.
There is another very serious drawback of Subversion vs Perforce (SVN team promises to fix it in post-1.0 but we'll see). Perforce does have a merge subsystem that tracks merge history and uses it whenever cross-branch merges are made. SVN doens't doo that, which makes it basically similar to CVS in its [nonexistant] merge capabilities.
Believe me, once you enter the realm of large-scale systems development with change propagation to multiple branches (e.g. prodfix being propagated to beta, alpha, and current development branches) you will want to track your merges.
Another factor that makes me feel better about Perforce is the fact that it uses RCS format as a backend for actual data (metadata goes into a DB). If poop hits the turbine, I'd rather have something I can recover files from easily.
I'd say that same thing about MacOS too.
Well... It's not x86, strictly speaking. I consider it a "niche" operating system, just like AIX, Solaris, and MVS. When/if Apple decides to port it to x86, we'll see how it goes. I'd say, MacOS has a chance to become a competitor to Linux and Windows.
I guess Slashdot should stop covering anything other than Windows or Linux, since no one cares. Or come to that, why bother with Linux? Might as well go Windows-only.
No, both would be an oversimplification of what I'd said.:-) I have no problem with other OS coverage, I'm just saying that they are not relevant from business perspective. They will not flourish beyond a circle of dedicated followers and developers, and even those people will hardly use these systems for their day-to-day work. And as I said, it is very difficult to find a reason to have yet another operating system - both Linux and Windows are very feature complete and are in fact universal systems capable of running many kinds of programs and doing things ranging from video and multimedia to e-mail to nuclear reaction modelling. Linux is free and open so one can develop whatever missing pieces are there without rolling out yet another operating systems.
Going back to AmigaOS, I'm very sceptical about what exactly is it going to bring to the table which will make it compelling for people to use (not to install, say "cool" and forget about it). Besides, the original AmigaOS wasn't all that revolutionary - it was basically a regular 32-bit M68k based workstation with a small but decent application suit.
I'm sure those involved with AROS or MorphOS would care.
That's just fine. My point is, AROS, MorphOS, or AnyOtherSuperCoolOS are just as irrelevant as AmigaOS or CPM are. The big OS competition on PC platform is down to Windows vs Linux and the cost of entry for any other OS is unbearably high. Plan 9 and BeOS were very promising candidates but they failed just as quickly.
Both Linux and Windows are extremely feature-complete at this point. I am yet to see a compelling argument for any other "different" OS on Intel hardware (I am not counting BSD which roughly falls into the same category as Linux). Just being different or having a cute GUI doesn't count if one doesn't have application support.
I can imagine the "brainstorming" (or was it brainf@rting) process at the Amiga headquarters: "Let's release the screenshots! We'll be like Microsoft! Everyone will drool and jump up and down in anticipation." I guess they are in for a great surprise - the product is just as dead as it can be and the best thing they can do is to admit it and give it a proper burial (hell, they might even consider open-sourcing it, although, again, not may would care).
The assumption of Amiga OS team living in a cave for last 10 years is also firmly supported by the oh-so OS/2 quality of the screenshots: such timeless wonders as crude icons, so very usable gray text on gray background and other factors that will make Amiga (whenever it's done) so relevant in the OS competition.
In any case, thanks for the screenshots. The target Amiga platform audience, consisting of 4 teenagers with too much time on their hands and a dozen of nostalgic old timers will be very happy.
No, not because of that. For any popular gadget there will always be a large industry of add-ons, skins etc. Especially now, when no gadget can be released unless it has "skinz" and similar junk.
There is another reason why having a secondary industry is a good thing. It allows the primary vendor to focus on core features of the product without getting unfocused with various cute but not generally useful gizmos, like "an ethernet port w/ an internal web server," "a built-in ham radio tranciever," "a laser beam attached to shark's head" etc. This would be taken care of by the "leech" industry.
Finally, I've got an iPod (duh!) that I carry in the pouch that came with it. I never got it scratched and I don't need a special carrying case for it.
No, what I claim is that I don't need to try alternatives because iPod is good for me. Moreover, based on my personal and partial analysis, I claim that this is exactly the reason why a lot of other people will not need to try other offerings either.
Who cares about "brand recognition"? It only applies to the Apple corporation not the consumer.
Welcome to the real world. Consider getting a book on business & marketing at Amazon or BN to learn some basics. What you call "hyped" is exactly what "brand recognition" is. You know it when people start using the word "iPod" as a noun when they mean an mp3 player. Same thing as we now see with Tivo.
Brand recognition is everything. Most of brain-dead consumers buy goods based on brand, not on merits (obviously up to some reasonable limit). Try telling some teenager girl that gap jeans are just as good as her precious pair of Diesels or A|X and you'll see what I mean.:-) This is true in pretty much any society but it is especially true in our consumer-oriented we're-no-worse-than-the-johnses society.
No I haven't tried the alternatives. My point is exactly that I don't need to try alternatives just because of some cool featurette - iPod is working for me just fine.
Let me try to address the points above one by one:
1. Build quality - cannot say anything about it. I'd assume that it must be very well built to compete w/ iPod. Certain implementation details strike me as "gizmos" - for example a control with an LCD display. This display of course looks cool, but most of the time it is useless: you don't constantly check it to see what's playing and for those rare occasions when you do, main display is just fine. So the mini display is basically useless in my book, adding extra cost (both monetary and electric).
2. Mass storage device - nice to have. Not critical in any sense. There are two advantages in a mass storage device: data transfer abilities and ability to transfer music in a portable manner on many OSes treating the device as a disk. I don't believe data transfer abilities matter: keychain USB drives are dirt cheap and much more convenient. Their capacity is sufficient for everyday needs. As for cross-platform usability, yes it's useful but it is not important for most users (sorry, but it's true). One advantage though is that one can avoid using an abomination from Hell called Musicmatch for music upload.
3. Cannot comment on navigation. I'm not sure, there is something in iRiver that makes it much more convenient to navigate than iPod. I'm not sure it is possible to simplify navigation further...
4. Support is important, but again, consumers generally don't by the device thinking "Good that customer support works, when this device breaks down, they'll help me." Besides, brand recognition of Apple is lightyears ahead from iRiver.
5. Not sure what to say about this one... Seriously.
One more thing - iPods are expensive, but in their case the premium is paid for Apple brand, quality and reliability of the device. It looks like iRiver has either comparable or higher price structure on their devices. I don't think that the additional feature set and/or the look-n-feel justify the price level (so far the most reliable strategy in competing w/ iPod is proper pricing). I think this device will not be very popular at that price.
Just as I said - one could come up with a host of "cool" features missing in iPods, but most of such features would require making the UI more complex and/or cluttered. iPod strikes the [almost] perfect balance.
No, it's far from being an ipod killer. Ipods are very small and trim. They sport an extremely simple yet efficient UI that doesn't overload the user with glitz. Ipod strikes the balance of elegance, efficiency, and simplicity.
The industry has been desperately trying to reinvent the Ipod for some time. Yet none of the current offerings are on par with it. The look-n-feel of the iRiver's device (based on the pictures) doesn't look to me like an iPod killer.
Ogg support is obviously a good thing (tm). Yet, this is not enough for me to position it in front of iPod - simply because iPod just does the job. Of course, one could come up with a hole sleuth of justified and unjustified improvements to the iPod model, but even without them iPod is a clear winner so far.
Smart Tags in the article (or is it me?)
on
LinuxTag Show Report
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've been reading it in IE 6 and it shows a lot of smart tags in the article (my favorite one is a tag placed on every 'Linux' or 'open source' occurence prompting for free trial of VS.NET 2003). Is it me (XP+IE) or is it OSNews?
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. #2 requires physical access to the computer. #1 doesn't require it. Once #1 becomes low-tech, we will see an explosion of abuse in that area.
True, wireless keyboard range is purpotedly small but the question is whether it is small enough. For example, if someone works near the window on the first floor, what would be the reception area. Similarly, if my neighbor has his PC next to the adjacent wall, can I pick it up?
Finally, your assessment of the wireless keyboard protocol security as "fairly secure" is outright ridiculous. As I said, we've had WAP that was designed with security in mind for devices much more powerful compared to wireless keyboards and yet it failed. Something tells me that the security algorithms behind wireless keyboards are simplistic in their design and count on obscurity as the primary factor. I am positive that it is a matter of time before we start seeing security alerts on wireless keyboards.
I do however have a nagging feeling that because the signal is short-range by design, the security measures implemented within the protocol are minimal and/or naive. WEP initially looked like a very well thought out security framework and it turned out to be a disaster. Something tells me that whatever is used by wireless keyboards is not even on WEP level.
Just like we have WarSpying intercepting signal from wireless cameras, nothing in theory prevents anyone from coming up with a receiver made from RadioShack parts that intercepts wireless keyboard signal. The implications will be much more serious than a couple of teenagers oogling at someone in underwear strolling around her apartment.
Until there is an honest discussion about wireless keyboard security, I don't feel that the risk is adequately compensated by the convenience.
- To acquire a Visual C++ development system, and
- To purchase an add-on for Windows CE development.
Nowadays, one just has to spend 15 minutes downloading eVC++ 4 for free. Same goes for Windows-oriented development. Same for dozens of other SDKs. There are ways to develop for each and every Microsoft platform using free tools from Microsoft.What is going to happen actually, in my opinion, will be similar to the situation with development tools for .NET framework:
Now on a personal note. I think, I am willing to pay $299 if this would give me a single tool that would provide coverage for all Pocket PC and Windows Mobile target platforms without the sheer madness of having to install eVC++ 3, eVC++ 4, VS 6, and VS.NET 2003 (let alone a half dozen of platform SDKs). This alone is well worth $299. ;-)
I've been a long-time user of SneakEmail and I cannot praise it enough. It has exactly the required feature set and is very handy. I highly recommend it to everyone concerned about e-mail privacy and I urge people to donate to support it (it is free but donations are welcome).
I would like to hear how other people solve the issue with the contact info on the domain records. Using fake information comes to mind but still, maybe there is a way to handle this without everyone knowing where I leave...
You are absolutely right about small fish which would continue to exist along with the two biggest players. Remember however, that unlike hamburgers or vacuum cleaners, an operating system is a platform for other software, so considering it in isolation would be a mistake. Just imagine if my company came out with a tape recorder that would use a completely different cassette type. Can it exist in theory along the standard formats - absolutely! Would it be able to exist (esp. as a commercial entity) - probably not.
Same thing with an O/S. Unless the company itself would build a compelling application stack for an O/S, it would have to rely on ISVs to do so. Would the ISVs port their software to Amiga? You may hold me to my words: they would not. At best, they would use the compatibility layer (like POSIX API if possible). However that would make Amiga no more than an expensive Linux (or Windows) emulator. I still maintain that Amiga will have the same fate as OS/2 in that respect: a small number of commercial vendors offering aging versions of simple programs reminding of Windows 3.0 and a bunch of BBS like repositories for software maintained by a couple of enthusiasts. This will not make Amiga viable. It takes an awful lot of money to feed the company staff and to pay the rent, so a couple hundred folks that feel nostalgic about the brand name are not gonna make it. It may have some future though if Amiga secures some niche, like OS/2 did with ATMs, but I doubt it - both Windows CE and Linux are pretty aggressive in this market, already eating the lunch of a number of embedded systems.
Last but not the least is the fact that Amiga is cheerfully digging its own grave by making the OS run on expensive and proprietary hardware. I find it ironic - Sun is charging ahead making Intel (AMD actually) their 2nd platform of choice and Amiga is choosing the proprietary path...
As for the OS "that fills your hard disk" - unless AmigaOS is capable of running from a 128Mb USB dongle, I really don't care whether it takes 250Mb or 10Gb on my hard drive. I use my PC to actually run software that helps me do my work, not to meditate on df output.
Finally, always remember the Law of Duality. This explains very nicely why neither AmigaOS, nor BeOS would ever enjoy significant popularity on the market.
Oh, and BTW, I really don't care about the stage GUI gets loaded at. On workstations I use the GUI so it doesn't matters and on the servers, GUI gets swapped out pretty quickly.
Let me see - yet another non-standard hardware platform and another OS with incompatible API (and screenshots that make OS/2 look pretty). Whoa - those guys are really smart! I predict them smashing success amongst those 17 aging geeks who cannot get over the fact that AmigaOS was better than Windows 2.0/286.
No parent wants his or her child to fall behind.
Reminds me of the salesguy in that episode with Homer Simpson buying a computer: "You don't want to buy this model. Only suckers buy those. You are not a sucker, are you?"
I hope, teens will chose the Dell.
- I absolutely hate the BREW API. Consider Windows 2.0 286 edition SDK API. Now castrate it to fit into an embedded O/S - this is pretty much what you get. Forget all you knew about device independent programming: data structures have fixed layout you are supposed to depend upon. Start dealing with bits and bytes. Add on top the compatibility hell between different BREW releases - here you go. J2ME is also an embedded platform but it is lightyears ahead of BREW.
- For those liking the open-source model, BREW is not good news. Forget about distributing your software, as the only distribution channel is controlled by the provider and it is geared toward making money. To get in, one needs to at least certify the program on each applicable phone model/architecture and it costs.
- Now, playing the Devil's advocate. This distribution model actually does spell good news for the developers of commercial software as they significantly limit themselves from pirating and they get rid if that pesky open-source competition eating into their profit.
I am in no position to predict the future but I would like BREW to die a horrible death. I do like the J2ME both from technical point of view and for its open distribution model.Once again, I didn't say that PHP cannot have an object model. It definitely can have such and I hope one would be provided in future releases (again, thanks to ASP.NET for raising the mark). However, ASP.NET is much much more than just a set of objects abstracting the developer from HTML. Just to name a few features:
In my opinion, Microsofties have done a major (as in "revolutionary") step forward with ASP.NET. Other web frameworks are yet to catch up. Java has probably best chance to do so, as it already comes with a full-featured runtime environment. I think, we will see fairly soon some Java alternative to ASP.NET and I hope that PHP will eventually move into that space as well.
It is actually quite sad to see such superficial attempts to justify an open-source product merely on the "merits" of not being produced by Microsoft. I mean, using criteria like "strong", "weak", "$$" is not what I would consider professional. I good way to compare products actually would be to get the experts to implement a relatively real-life project (like the famous Pet Store) in both languages and then compare the development time, speed, code metrics, scalability, and potential for extensions. That would be a true comparison, not the "metrics" used in the article.
Now back to personal preferences. Being a UNIX programmer with about 16 years of experience, I can assure you ASP.NET blows any other Web framework out of the water. Yes, it is that good. You get a very nice and consistent object model with full .NET power behind it. JSP and servlets shouldn't bother either as all HTML is generated transparently - in many cases you don't have to write a single line in HTML! As a result, you write less code, it is easier to maintain, with fewer opportunities for bugs or security holes. All are considered best practices in my book. I'd love to see PHP mature to the ASP.NET level but it is simply not there yet and even the attempts of PHP 5 to tackle these problems is a step in right direction, there is still a very long way to go.
Believe me, once you enter the realm of large-scale systems development with change propagation to multiple branches (e.g. prodfix being propagated to beta, alpha, and current development branches) you will want to track your merges.
Another factor that makes me feel better about Perforce is the fact that it uses RCS format as a backend for actual data (metadata goes into a DB). If poop hits the turbine, I'd rather have something I can recover files from easily.
I guess Slashdot should stop covering anything other than Windows or Linux, since no one cares. Or come to that, why bother with Linux? Might as well go Windows-only. No, both would be an oversimplification of what I'd said. :-) I have no problem with other OS coverage, I'm just saying that they are not relevant from business perspective. They will not flourish beyond a circle of dedicated followers and developers, and even those people will hardly use these systems for their day-to-day work. And as I said, it is very difficult to find a reason to have yet another operating system - both Linux and Windows are very feature complete and are in fact universal systems capable of running many kinds of programs and doing things ranging from video and multimedia to e-mail to nuclear reaction modelling. Linux is free and open so one can develop whatever missing pieces are there without rolling out yet another operating systems.
Going back to AmigaOS, I'm very sceptical about what exactly is it going to bring to the table which will make it compelling for people to use (not to install, say "cool" and forget about it). Besides, the original AmigaOS wasn't all that revolutionary - it was basically a regular 32-bit M68k based workstation with a small but decent application suit.
I'm sure those involved with AROS or MorphOS would care.
That's just fine. My point is, AROS, MorphOS, or AnyOtherSuperCoolOS are just as irrelevant as AmigaOS or CPM are. The big OS competition on PC platform is down to Windows vs Linux and the cost of entry for any other OS is unbearably high. Plan 9 and BeOS were very promising candidates but they failed just as quickly.
Both Linux and Windows are extremely feature-complete at this point. I am yet to see a compelling argument for any other "different" OS on Intel hardware (I am not counting BSD which roughly falls into the same category as Linux). Just being different or having a cute GUI doesn't count if one doesn't have application support.
The assumption of Amiga OS team living in a cave for last 10 years is also firmly supported by the oh-so OS/2 quality of the screenshots: such timeless wonders as crude icons, so very usable gray text on gray background and other factors that will make Amiga (whenever it's done) so relevant in the OS competition.
In any case, thanks for the screenshots. The target Amiga platform audience, consisting of 4 teenagers with too much time on their hands and a dozen of nostalgic old timers will be very happy.
You've nailed it! Good analysis.
There is another reason why having a secondary industry is a good thing. It allows the primary vendor to focus on core features of the product without getting unfocused with various cute but not generally useful gizmos, like "an ethernet port w/ an internal web server," "a built-in ham radio tranciever," "a laser beam attached to shark's head" etc. This would be taken care of by the "leech" industry.
Finally, I've got an iPod (duh!) that I carry in the pouch that came with it. I never got it scratched and I don't need a special carrying case for it.
No, what I claim is that I don't need to try alternatives because iPod is good for me. Moreover, based on my personal and partial analysis, I claim that this is exactly the reason why a lot of other people will not need to try other offerings either.
Brand recognition is everything. Most of brain-dead consumers buy goods based on brand, not on merits (obviously up to some reasonable limit). Try telling some teenager girl that gap jeans are just as good as her precious pair of Diesels or A|X and you'll see what I mean. :-) This is true in pretty much any society but it is especially true in our consumer-oriented we're-no-worse-than-the-johnses society.
Let me try to address the points above one by one:
1. Build quality - cannot say anything about it. I'd assume that it must be very well built to compete w/ iPod. Certain implementation details strike me as "gizmos" - for example a control with an LCD display. This display of course looks cool, but most of the time it is useless: you don't constantly check it to see what's playing and for those rare occasions when you do, main display is just fine. So the mini display is basically useless in my book, adding extra cost (both monetary and electric).
2. Mass storage device - nice to have. Not critical in any sense. There are two advantages in a mass storage device: data transfer abilities and ability to transfer music in a portable manner on many OSes treating the device as a disk. I don't believe data transfer abilities matter: keychain USB drives are dirt cheap and much more convenient. Their capacity is sufficient for everyday needs. As for cross-platform usability, yes it's useful but it is not important for most users (sorry, but it's true). One advantage though is that one can avoid using an abomination from Hell called Musicmatch for music upload.
3. Cannot comment on navigation. I'm not sure, there is something in iRiver that makes it much more convenient to navigate than iPod. I'm not sure it is possible to simplify navigation further...
4. Support is important, but again, consumers generally don't by the device thinking "Good that customer support works, when this device breaks down, they'll help me." Besides, brand recognition of Apple is lightyears ahead from iRiver.
5. Not sure what to say about this one... Seriously.
One more thing - iPods are expensive, but in their case the premium is paid for Apple brand, quality and reliability of the device. It looks like iRiver has either comparable or higher price structure on their devices. I don't think that the additional feature set and/or the look-n-feel justify the price level (so far the most reliable strategy in competing w/ iPod is proper pricing). I think this device will not be very popular at that price.
Just as I said - one could come up with a host of "cool" features missing in iPods, but most of such features would require making the UI more complex and/or cluttered. iPod strikes the [almost] perfect balance.
The industry has been desperately trying to reinvent the Ipod for some time. Yet none of the current offerings are on par with it. The look-n-feel of the iRiver's device (based on the pictures) doesn't look to me like an iPod killer.
Ogg support is obviously a good thing (tm). Yet, this is not enough for me to position it in front of iPod - simply because iPod just does the job. Of course, one could come up with a hole sleuth of justified and unjustified improvements to the iPod model, but even without them iPod is a clear winner so far.
I've been reading it in IE 6 and it shows a lot of smart tags in the article (my favorite one is a tag placed on every 'Linux' or 'open source' occurence prompting for free trial of VS.NET 2003). Is it me (XP+IE) or is it OSNews?