For Intel processors to run PowerPC instructions takes a lot of power. Luckly, that power exists, yet it not allow a truly powerful Mac OS X experience since that OS has a large overhead for graphics power. Graphic hardware acceleration in modern uses of Mac OS X (such as graphic work and games) is practically essential. Still, I'll withhold judgment on this Cherry thing until I try it out.
Emulator talk reminds me of a funny error message you get if you try to install a copy of Virtual PC for Windows within a Windows environment running on Virtual PC for Mac OS. The error says somthing like:
"You cannot install Virtual PC for Windows within the Mac OS version of Virtual PC."
No one wants government to step in, but this is necessary as it was for any other public transport.
Regulation sets laws that define behaviors that encourage business to invest (that is, with legislation, the likelihood of a suit is reduced and risks of collisions and other accidents are not considered experimental).
Taxes from such regulation pay for advancements in disaster management and homeland defense (FEMA isn't yet equipped to handle a toxic booster drop; the National Guard and major armed services would need to assist in such a disaster, if not being aware of authorized and unauthorized Mach-2 vehicles in a city airspace, for instance).
It would be best if any spaceflights (civil, business, or recreation) be handled in the one spot where such features are already in place and which would help in the overall flights--the Cape.
I just came from a visit to the Cape and stayed at Cocoa Beach. Their economy is not good there, depending highly on decreasing tourism. A new space boom--one that would be sustaining either through private recreation suborbital hops, larger corporation spaceplane pan-oceanic commutes, as well as government flights from the Big Boys at NASA and the Air Force flights would do a state and a country good.
I think we're looking at the next technological boon, and Scaled and Virgin are to be credited with spending the money and showing the results and potential.
Uh, regulation does not stop when a transport leaves borders. The vehicle itself rules by the laws of the country of origin for the most part as well as common international airflight laws. A little adaptation for space travel and we're good to go.
The games should have (unless I missed it there in the article) an old-school gaming competition, with arcade games such as
--Atari Star Wars (the sit-down vector game with the sharp controller) --Street Fighter --Tron (Playing this game had applications outside, where that trained fast-twitch finger that shot spiders also worked wonders on the naughty bits of women. Girls have a special button of their own, if you know what I'm sayin'.) --A few pinball games --Atari Lunar Lander --Tempest --Bererk --Robotron --Defende r
I could go on. I could add Galaga, but it's STILL played to death in my mind...
I'd be SO the Professor in a match like that. School's back in, sucka!
John Young is still listed as on the active roster for Astronaut flight status (though he has admitted that his wife will kill him if he flew again).
John Young, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan are the only men who have flown to the moon twice (A10/16, A8/13, and A10/17, respectively). All three were CMPs (IIRC) before becoming Commanders in their last Apollo flights, but Lovell, of course, did not get to moonwalk. I believe that Lovell was also an Original 7 candidate.
Only Shepard of the Original 7 was a moonwalker, although it was strongly rumored that, were it not for the Fire of 1967, Gus Grissom was practically a shoe-in as the first moonwalker.
It is ironic that Gus Grissom almost drowned because a hatch would not stay shut on his first mission, and died inside a spacecraft by asphyxiation from a hatch that would not open. After the recovery of Mercury/Liberty Bell 7 from the ocean floor, it was discovered that the hatch did blow on its own, with the explosive charge that was intended to do so still intact.
I loved Pete Conrad. The characterization of him in the "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries was pretty enjoyable and showed just how humorous and life-enriched he was.
However, he was not an Original 7 astronaut, but part of Group 2, which includes most of the Apollo and Gemini veterans including notables like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, and John Young.
The three surviving Original 7 astronauts are John Glenn, Wally Schirra (also interestingly portrayed in "From...Moon") and Scott Carpenter, who kinda got all hippie-high during his flight, overused his fuel reserves and dropped himself about 250 miles off target from splashdown.
...because the format that the iPod uses for storing music is the DRM'ed AAC format, not MP3.
And how would some white, fat guy know what I have for my music and how I obtained it? Sounds like some white guy trying to tell a reasonable, lawful human being in America that they don't know any better and to buy their product so that they can "teach" us.
Most of us you accuse, Mr. Ballmer, are adults who make our money and obtain our music the old fashioned (and legal) way--unlike your company's practices, which seems to steal it.
He (as he is speaking as a Microsoft rep) has some damned NERVE to accuse everyone as thieves just because we don't want to buy their product.
I'm all for concept stuff to make an achievement, but which one, if offered to you, would you fly in; the da Vinci rocket, or Rutan's SpaceShipOne?
The Tier One system is by far the more aircraft-like of the two, has many abort modes that offer you some level of safety in a still-dangerous adventure, and appears to have plenty of money to ensure the design is not contrived.
IANARS, but it also appears that the Tier One design is highly scalable. Just make a large enough plane that can achieve a high altitude that can carry a large enough orbiter and fuel, and this thing can become a new LEO personnel or unmanned shuttle, or the much-lamented spaceplane.
At the least, quite a few of us would pay a few thousand to ride the thing like a rollercoaster to get our astronaut wings, experience weightlessness, and see the Earth in a way few of us have ever seen it.
This find is likely similar to the STS structural test article vehicle--an engineering-exact duplicate of an Orbiter vehicle used for tests in the early days of the Space Shuttle program in America. The Russians needed something similar, obviously.
Our STA, STA-099, was retrofitted after it was clear that retrofitting the test Orbiter Enterprise would be too costly. So, STA-099 become OV-099, Challenger. There might have been much gnashing of teeth to have seen Enterprise destroyed on that cold January day in 1986 for some fanboys than Challenger, I would think--not to belittle that death of a vehicle or its crew would seem any more or less important based on its name.
JibJab only won because the courts dismissed the case since the song in question, "This Land", by Woody Guthrie, is truly in the public domain, where any entity can use it anyway they wish.
However, "Mystery Science Theater 3000", "MST3K" and other names are owned by Best Brains, Inc. This is copyright infringement, pure and simple, since, although the company does not make new shows, they still own an active and binding copyright to the name.
Likeness naming is generally something that courts don't tolerate to avoid customer confusion or public figure issues. Take the case of a rapper who got shot down in court when LucasFilm successfully sued for trademark infringement for using the name "Luke Skyywalker" in his works. I'm sure there's some court cases where private citizens are denied requests to name themselves after celebrities, which get a de facto copyright on their name for as long as they live (or until they incorporate themselves with their name).
I know you jest, but get back to me when you have to set up several Apple rackmounts for prepress people and their systems. It's a lot like being a Windows system admin, but I get to keep my hair and MY ETERNAL SOUL.
..or a perfect joke, which no one but the writer will get.
Not just in the unprofessional writing and methodology, but in its ad hominem judgements on other technologies without fact. Example from page 5: "As clearly demonstrated, other than the toy OS Mac OS X, Windows has the lowest TC0 on the market." Mind you, I am a Mac OS X system admin, so there is a little bias here, but I also use other operating systems and know of the joys and tragedies of each. This article is polarized to say anything that justifies their position. We call this behavior (in IT circles) being a zealot. Given that Mac OS X's underpinnings have a history dating back to 1988 and have many, many users at home, business, and professional circles using it, I don't see his reasoning or his proof.
There is little else to the study as well, which talks more of about obscure vunerabilities in Linux and not the many, many, many actual attacks that have occurred. I know--we ALL know how many virus attacks have happened on our BSD/Linux/Mac OS X boxen over the last year versus Windows: Not even one.
So the only question is, how much was this guy paid, and how tasty was the Kool-Aid?
Re:Macintosh and Linux Marketshares
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 1
If I could moderate here, you would be an obvious troll.
If you were an Apple stockholder since April, you would also be an idiot as Apple's stock value indicates that Wall Street and its consumers are pretty happy.
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but perhaps you shouldn't parrot 10-year old myths about what you think Apple is as a company or what their systems are really capable of. You are wasting bandwidth, AC.
My claim to Apple's installed base MUST have basis because the third-parties that rely on being able to sell a target number of their product would never sell to a small market. This logic is the same business sense that prevents Macintosh users from seeing most new PC games until these games have easily exceeded their sales expectations in that market, and where a Mac port would be just gravy to them.
I could say that IDC has conducted a study about red-assed baboons and their use of Linux. Until someone points out the study name and where to read it, I remain skeptical that they are trying to blow smoke through their ass and into mine. Are you the type of person that believes the commercials where they "say" a nationwide study has proven they are the better product? I want to read the source itself, not this soundbyte of an article.
I used to work for an IDC company. I don't doubt their professionalism, just their data. If the article can point us to the actual study, with its sources and methodology, and when it was conducted, then the article could defend itself. Until then, it's an opinion.
Macintosh and Linux Marketshares
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not to take anything away from the Linux camp, but celebrations may be premature in thinking that they exceed the Mac base in home or business.
This article claims that Linux marketshare has overtaken Apple's Mac OS marketshare, but without proof or source. Like the presidential campaigns, you should never simply take something as fact just because someone has stated it. Just because I say, "John Kerry secretly played Lurch in the 'Addams Family'" doesn't make it true (although the image is rather funny to me).
Frequently here and elsewhere pundits confuse marketshare (the percentage of a company's computers sold in relation to the total sum of all computers sold) with installed base (the percentage of a particular company's computers in use in comparison to their competition).
I do believe that Apple has as marketshare between 3% and 6% for its Macintosh line. (Let's not get into the iPods, where they enjoy a 75%+ marketshare--reminiscent of the company's similar marketshare in the late 70's computer heyday). However, the installed base of Macintosh systems must reside around 15 to 25%. In other words, 1 out of 6 or 1 out of 5 computers IN USE are likely Macintosh systems.
My proof? The Macintosh software industry. Do you think these companies, from Apple itself, to game distributors such as Aspyr, from Microsoft and their Office software, to graphic software companies like Adobe and Quark, could survive from the sales of software to only 3% of the total marketshare? No. Would they survive on the sales of a larger installed base? Likely.
My estimate is simplistic, of course, and does not fully account for systems that are older than 5 years and cannot run Mac OS X, of which most software made now requires to operate. Also, the 3% marketshare that Apple sells is stil a HUGE market of over 800,000 computers per quarter (their numbers).
Linux can't easily be compared in this instance. For one, Linux is a commodity, but not to any one company, so you cannot fix its sales or lack thereof to any one entity. Two, because of the lack of a single source of sales and the availability of the software to anyone who can download it, determining an installed base, much less a marketshare, is difficult.
In my couple of decades in working in businesses with Windows domains in the publishing and engineering worlds, I have counted a handful (I could count them on my fingers) of Linux systems in a business or professional environment. Hopefully there is a way to determine a true number of deployments, but I don't believe it from this article based on my personal experience of not seeing more boxen in the workplace.
Sure, 96% of all computers sold in a given period this year may have a version of Windows, and the 2.8% percentage of Macs sold is probably accurate, too.
But if you go on the streets and homes and count up an average of the installed computers still in use over a given period (let's say, 5 years), you will find a different percentage.
My experience shows that, on average, 80-85% of all computers in use in the home or business are PCs running Windows. The rest, around 15% are Macintosh systems, with a smattering of Linux users who are particularly choosy moms and dads.
The Apple business community, which includes Apple itself as well as its product's software and hardware vendors, could not possibly survive with only 2.8% of the population using Macs.
An installed base of around 15%, however, is a healthy slice of the pie. Many car companies that thrive well today would kill for such a large percentage.
The installed base, fortunately, buys Macintosh software a bit more often than the average PC user (despite the point that PC software is generally cheaper and more readily available). My logic? PC users fight more with the computers running Windows and don't want to rock the boat much, on average. Gamers and programming geeks are excluded from this observation--we'll try ANYTHING.
This Windows/Mac software buying trend has decreased as Windows became more robust with XP and PC software has become less crappy, however. Fortunately, the Apple and UNIX communities still work on the "we try harder" mode that pushes the technology instead of revamping or reanimating older stuff. Case in point? Microsoft adding UNIX programming ability in Longhorn. If they cannot lead, they will follow.
Many companies use features available for Windows Servers and third-party software to force updates and patches if you connect a computer to their network, or, more specifically, attempt to get a network address or login to the company domain.
For Windows users, this isn't really a bad thing as a whole, since it's not your job (and nor would you want it) to remember and know every frickin' problem that Windows has or its severity. So, let the campus ITs do their work to keep you and other computers playing nice-nice on the network.
On the other hand, the campus IT needs to be careful what they send as compulsory updates. Some PCs do not take certain updates well for God Knows Why, which could hose your system in some way. If that happens, I wouldn't know what your recourse would be to have your campus IT fix what it broke.
And don't think I'm just picking on Windows, either--other operating systems, including Mac OS X and Linux, need some necessary updates, too. Those operating systems (so far) have had far, far fewer viral attacks than Windows that cause Bad Days.
My problem with Comdex was that it wasn't a particularly attractive show. Because most tech on display was heavily influenced, in my opinion, by Microsoft work, the show got the nickname of Windex. As a result over the years, the less creative Microsoft became, the less interesting the shows became. Fewer people and exhibitors attended, and you see the result.
Sorry, as a Mac tech, I don't do Windows, primarily. Today, in this world where viable alternatives to MS tech are plentiful, other companies are considering Linux, Mac OS X and other UNIX-derived tech and not looking back.
A reminder that only 3 Orbiters could reach ISS anyway: Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. OV-101 Columbia, the first and heaviest Orbiter, could not reach the ISS and was left to scientific missions.
Right now, NASA has necessary redundancy, but, yes, I agree that the loss of an additional Orbiter would serious tax NASA's new safeguards and rescue modes. They plan on having a 2nd Shuttle ready to launch on the pad as a rescue vehicle while a mission is in progress. Considering how long to takes to prep an Orbiter, having just two of them would be a serious condition.
I'm a writer and computer tech, not a developer, so I send in few bug reports unless I'm personally testing a beta. I know a little bit of the programming world to understand the dilemma.
As a former media editor for the publishers of the "For Dummies" books back in the mid-1990s, I did quite a bit of correction on computer how-to text and the CD documentation it needed. Even today, if you pick up one of those books with a CD, the text I created there is still in the same basic structure, even after 8 years or so. And if a For Dummies book was confusing, that was a very bad thing, indeed.
In the case of books, the job of authors and publishers to fix errata. Usually publishers don't fix only minor errors until a new edition. However, many authors have their own private web page (or one that is made by the publisher) where errata can be downloaded.
But we are comparing apples and oranges.
A book is a professionally developed product that is designed to attract a reader, be purchased, and give a reader information or entertainment, all while being understandable.
MAN pages and other computer docs are optional to read, but give vital information and instruction. However, they are poorly written not because the developer is unintelligent, but because the art of writing clearly, concisely and simply in their native language takes a separate mindshift out of the chaotic world of programming and its logical language.
It's a little offtopic, but anyone who's seen the opening text of the video game Zero Wing knows well how writing clearly can make a difference.
I'm a computer tech and consultant that generally putters with programming. I wasn't too shocked to see, as I moved to Mac OS X, how badly the man help and documentation files were written.
My career involves many publishing venues, including a very popular book publisher and a city newspaper. While most developers are very adept at their work, self-expression or documentation is not their strong suit in general. The text is jargon-rich and circular, presuming that the reader already has a knowledge base equal to that of the writer.
This one point alone is why Linux and almost all other UNIX blends and clones never get the attention they seek. It's not that the OS is rotten (far from it), but because users have NO FRICKIN' CLUE what to do with it, including installing the OS (which programmers should really assume will be atop or supplementing Windows), and the help information is incomprehensible, if it exists at all.
Further, the diversity of X Window-based interfaces (window managers and desktop managers like KDE) are too diverse, leaving users very confused where anything is. Mac OS X is essentially the only UNIX clone/blend that a grandma can use. Sure, grandma CAN use Linux, but who's going to teach her how in a way that is understandable? She certainly won't try to READ how.
My humble opinion is that programmers should stop trying to steal the likenesses of Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X and attempt to kidnap the companies' marketing and human interface staff!
Slashdot Mirror
Being bitter that the timing was good (albeit with an old joke) and being a Coward is no way to go through life, son.
...is insignificant next to the power of a Slashdotting.
For Intel processors to run PowerPC instructions takes a lot of power. Luckly, that power exists, yet it not allow a truly powerful Mac OS X experience since that OS has a large overhead for graphics power. Graphic hardware acceleration in modern uses of Mac OS X (such as graphic work and games) is practically essential. Still, I'll withhold judgment on this Cherry thing until I try it out.
Emulator talk reminds me of a funny error message you get if you try to install a copy of Virtual PC for Windows within a Windows environment running on Virtual PC for Mac OS. The error says somthing like:
"You cannot install Virtual PC for Windows within the Mac OS version of Virtual PC."
"(Nice try.) "
No one wants government to step in, but this is necessary as it was for any other public transport.
Regulation sets laws that define behaviors that encourage business to invest (that is, with legislation, the likelihood of a suit is reduced and risks of collisions and other accidents are not considered experimental).
Taxes from such regulation pay for advancements in disaster management and homeland defense (FEMA isn't yet equipped to handle a toxic booster drop; the National Guard and major armed services would need to assist in such a disaster, if not being aware of authorized and unauthorized Mach-2 vehicles in a city airspace, for instance).
It would be best if any spaceflights (civil, business, or recreation) be handled in the one spot where such features are already in place and which would help in the overall flights--the Cape.
I just came from a visit to the Cape and stayed at Cocoa Beach. Their economy is not good there, depending highly on decreasing tourism. A new space boom--one that would be sustaining either through private recreation suborbital hops, larger corporation spaceplane pan-oceanic commutes, as well as government flights from the Big Boys at NASA and the Air Force flights would do a state and a country good.
I think we're looking at the next technological boon, and Scaled and Virgin are to be credited with spending the money and showing the results and potential.
Uh, regulation does not stop when a transport leaves borders. The vehicle itself rules by the laws of the country of origin for the most part as well as common international airflight laws. A little adaptation for space travel and we're good to go.
The games should have (unless I missed it there in the article) an old-school gaming competition, with arcade games such as
e r
--Atari Star Wars (the sit-down vector game with the sharp controller)
--Street Fighter
--Tron (Playing this game had applications outside, where that trained fast-twitch finger that shot spiders also worked wonders on the naughty bits of women. Girls have a special button of their own, if you know what I'm sayin'.)
--A few pinball games
--Atari Lunar Lander
--Tempest
--Bererk
--Robotron
--Defend
I could go on. I could add Galaga, but it's STILL played to death in my mind...
I'd be SO the Professor in a match like that. School's back in, sucka!
As if beer doesn't make you pee enough!
B/E! Now you can piss like the mighty Mississipp!!
Excellent trivia, but there are a few more.
John Young is still listed as on the active roster for Astronaut flight status (though he has admitted that his wife will kill him if he flew again).
John Young, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan are the only men who have flown to the moon twice (A10/16, A8/13, and A10/17, respectively). All three were CMPs (IIRC) before becoming Commanders in their last Apollo flights, but Lovell, of course, did not get to moonwalk. I believe that Lovell was also an Original 7 candidate.
Only Shepard of the Original 7 was a moonwalker, although it was strongly rumored that, were it not for the Fire of 1967, Gus Grissom was practically a shoe-in as the first moonwalker.
It is ironic that Gus Grissom almost drowned because a hatch would not stay shut on his first mission, and died inside a spacecraft by asphyxiation from a hatch that would not open. After the recovery of Mercury/Liberty Bell 7 from the ocean floor, it was discovered that the hatch did blow on its own, with the explosive charge that was intended to do so still intact.
I loved Pete Conrad. The characterization of him in the "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries was pretty enjoyable and showed just how humorous and life-enriched he was.
However, he was not an Original 7 astronaut, but part of Group 2, which includes most of the Apollo and Gemini veterans including notables like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, and John Young.
The three surviving Original 7 astronauts are John Glenn, Wally Schirra (also interestingly portrayed in "From...Moon") and Scott Carpenter, who kinda got all hippie-high during his flight, overused his fuel reserves and dropped himself about 250 miles off target from splashdown.
...because the format that the iPod uses for storing music is the DRM'ed AAC format, not MP3.
And how would some white, fat guy know what I have for my music and how I obtained it? Sounds like some white guy trying to tell a reasonable, lawful human being in America that they don't know any better and to buy their product so that they can "teach" us.
Most of us you accuse, Mr. Ballmer, are adults who make our money and obtain our music the old fashioned (and legal) way--unlike your company's practices, which seems to steal it.
He (as he is speaking as a Microsoft rep) has some damned NERVE to accuse everyone as thieves just because we don't want to buy their product.
I'm all for concept stuff to make an achievement, but which one, if offered to you, would you fly in; the da Vinci rocket, or Rutan's SpaceShipOne?
The Tier One system is by far the more aircraft-like of the two, has many abort modes that offer you some level of safety in a still-dangerous adventure, and appears to have plenty of money to ensure the design is not contrived.
IANARS, but it also appears that the Tier One design is highly scalable. Just make a large enough plane that can achieve a high altitude that can carry a large enough orbiter and fuel, and this thing can become a new LEO personnel or unmanned shuttle, or the much-lamented spaceplane.
At the least, quite a few of us would pay a few thousand to ride the thing like a rollercoaster to get our astronaut wings, experience weightlessness, and see the Earth in a way few of us have ever seen it.
But using a balloon and a cylinder? Hm.
This find is likely similar to the STS structural test article vehicle--an engineering-exact duplicate of an Orbiter vehicle used for tests in the early days of the Space Shuttle program in America. The Russians needed something similar, obviously.
Our STA, STA-099, was retrofitted after it was clear that retrofitting the test Orbiter Enterprise would be too costly. So, STA-099 become OV-099, Challenger. There might have been much gnashing of teeth to have seen Enterprise destroyed on that cold January day in 1986 for some fanboys than Challenger, I would think--not to belittle that death of a vehicle or its crew would seem any more or less important based on its name.
Everything you want to know about the Buran program in Russian, amongst many other space information, can be found at this popular and comprehensive web site.
Well, it's not a bad idea...so long as we don't fly it in as we did Genesis this morning...we want to make a soft landing, not make a core sample.
JibJab only won because the courts dismissed the case since the song in question, "This Land", by Woody Guthrie, is truly in the public domain, where any entity can use it anyway they wish.
However, "Mystery Science Theater 3000", "MST3K" and other names are owned by Best Brains, Inc. This is copyright infringement, pure and simple, since, although the company does not make new shows, they still own an active and binding copyright to the name.
Likeness naming is generally something that courts don't tolerate to avoid customer confusion or public figure issues. Take the case of a rapper who got shot down in court when LucasFilm successfully sued for trademark infringement for using the name "Luke Skyywalker" in his works. I'm sure there's some court cases where private citizens are denied requests to name themselves after celebrities, which get a de facto copyright on their name for as long as they live (or until they incorporate themselves with their name).
I know you jest, but get back to me when you have to set up several Apple rackmounts for prepress people and their systems. It's a lot like being a Windows system admin, but I get to keep my hair and MY ETERNAL SOUL.
..or a perfect joke, which no one but the writer will get.
Not just in the unprofessional writing and methodology, but in its ad hominem judgements on other technologies without fact. Example from page 5: "As clearly demonstrated, other than the toy OS Mac OS X, Windows has the lowest TC0 on the market." Mind you, I am a Mac OS X system admin, so there is a little bias here, but I also use other operating systems and know of the joys and tragedies of each. This article is polarized to say anything that justifies their position. We call this behavior (in IT circles) being a zealot. Given that Mac OS X's underpinnings have a history dating back to 1988 and have many, many users at home, business, and professional circles using it, I don't see his reasoning or his proof.
There is little else to the study as well, which talks more of about obscure vunerabilities in Linux and not the many, many, many actual attacks that have occurred. I know--we ALL know how many virus attacks have happened on our BSD/Linux/Mac OS X boxen over the last year versus Windows: Not even one.
So the only question is, how much was this guy paid, and how tasty was the Kool-Aid?
If I could moderate here, you would be an obvious troll.
If you were an Apple stockholder since April, you would also be an idiot as Apple's stock value indicates that Wall Street and its consumers are pretty happy.
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but perhaps you shouldn't parrot 10-year old myths about what you think Apple is as a company or what their systems are really capable of. You are wasting bandwidth, AC.
My claim to Apple's installed base MUST have basis because the third-parties that rely on being able to sell a target number of their product would never sell to a small market. This logic is the same business sense that prevents Macintosh users from seeing most new PC games until these games have easily exceeded their sales expectations in that market, and where a Mac port would be just gravy to them.
I could say that IDC has conducted a study about red-assed baboons and their use of Linux. Until someone points out the study name and where to read it, I remain skeptical that they are trying to blow smoke through their ass and into mine. Are you the type of person that believes the commercials where they "say" a nationwide study has proven they are the better product? I want to read the source itself, not this soundbyte of an article.
I used to work for an IDC company. I don't doubt their professionalism, just their data. If the article can point us to the actual study, with its sources and methodology, and when it was conducted, then the article could defend itself. Until then, it's an opinion.
Not to take anything away from the Linux camp, but celebrations may be premature in thinking that they exceed the Mac base in home or business.
This article claims that Linux marketshare has overtaken Apple's Mac OS marketshare, but without proof or source. Like the presidential campaigns, you should never simply take something as fact just because someone has stated it. Just because I say, "John Kerry secretly played Lurch in the 'Addams Family'" doesn't make it true (although the image is rather funny to me).
Frequently here and elsewhere pundits confuse marketshare (the percentage of a company's computers sold in relation to the total sum of all computers sold) with installed base (the percentage of a particular company's computers in use in comparison to their competition).
I do believe that Apple has as marketshare between 3% and 6% for its Macintosh line. (Let's not get into the iPods, where they enjoy a 75%+ marketshare--reminiscent of the company's similar marketshare in the late 70's computer heyday). However, the installed base of Macintosh systems must reside around 15 to 25%. In other words, 1 out of 6 or 1 out of 5 computers IN USE are likely Macintosh systems.
My proof? The Macintosh software industry. Do you think these companies, from Apple itself, to game distributors such as Aspyr, from Microsoft and their Office software, to graphic software companies like Adobe and Quark, could survive from the sales of software to only 3% of the total marketshare? No. Would they survive on the sales of a larger installed base? Likely.
My estimate is simplistic, of course, and does not fully account for systems that are older than 5 years and cannot run Mac OS X, of which most software made now requires to operate. Also, the 3% marketshare that Apple sells is stil a HUGE market of over 800,000 computers per quarter (their numbers).
Linux can't easily be compared in this instance. For one, Linux is a commodity, but not to any one company, so you cannot fix its sales or lack thereof to any one entity. Two, because of the lack of a single source of sales and the availability of the software to anyone who can download it, determining an installed base, much less a marketshare, is difficult.
In my couple of decades in working in businesses with Windows domains in the publishing and engineering worlds, I have counted a handful (I could count them on my fingers) of Linux systems in a business or professional environment. Hopefully there is a way to determine a true number of deployments, but I don't believe it from this article based on my personal experience of not seeing more boxen in the workplace.
Imagine a Slashdot topic full of Beowulf clusters...
Sure, 96% of all computers sold in a given period this year may have a version of Windows, and the 2.8% percentage of Macs sold is probably accurate, too.
But if you go on the streets and homes and count up an average of the installed computers still in use over a given period (let's say, 5 years), you will find a different percentage.
My experience shows that, on average, 80-85% of all computers in use in the home or business are PCs running Windows. The rest, around 15% are Macintosh systems, with a smattering of Linux users who are particularly choosy moms and dads.
The Apple business community, which includes Apple itself as well as its product's software and hardware vendors, could not possibly survive with only 2.8% of the population using Macs.
An installed base of around 15%, however, is a healthy slice of the pie. Many car companies that thrive well today would kill for such a large percentage.
The installed base, fortunately, buys Macintosh software a bit more often than the average PC user (despite the point that PC software is generally cheaper and more readily available). My logic? PC users fight more with the computers running Windows and don't want to rock the boat much, on average. Gamers and programming geeks are excluded from this observation--we'll try ANYTHING.
This Windows/Mac software buying trend has decreased as Windows became more robust with XP and PC software has become less crappy, however. Fortunately, the Apple and UNIX communities still work on the "we try harder" mode that pushes the technology instead of revamping or reanimating older stuff. Case in point? Microsoft adding UNIX programming ability in Longhorn. If they cannot lead, they will follow.
Many companies use features available for Windows Servers and third-party software to force updates and patches if you connect a computer to their network, or, more specifically, attempt to get a network address or login to the company domain.
For Windows users, this isn't really a bad thing as a whole, since it's not your job (and nor would you want it) to remember and know every frickin' problem that Windows has or its severity. So, let the campus ITs do their work to keep you and other computers playing nice-nice on the network.
On the other hand, the campus IT needs to be careful what they send as compulsory updates. Some PCs do not take certain updates well for God Knows Why, which could hose your system in some way. If that happens, I wouldn't know what your recourse would be to have your campus IT fix what it broke.
And don't think I'm just picking on Windows, either--other operating systems, including Mac OS X and Linux, need some necessary updates, too. Those operating systems (so far) have had far, far fewer viral attacks than Windows that cause Bad Days.
That could change someday.
My problem with Comdex was that it wasn't a particularly attractive show. Because most tech on display was heavily influenced, in my opinion, by Microsoft work, the show got the nickname of Windex. As a result over the years, the less creative Microsoft became, the less interesting the shows became. Fewer people and exhibitors attended, and you see the result.
Sorry, as a Mac tech, I don't do Windows, primarily. Today, in this world where viable alternatives to MS tech are plentiful, other companies are considering Linux, Mac OS X and other UNIX-derived tech and not looking back.
A reminder that only 3 Orbiters could reach ISS anyway: Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. OV-101 Columbia, the first and heaviest Orbiter, could not reach the ISS and was left to scientific missions.
Right now, NASA has necessary redundancy, but, yes, I agree that the loss of an additional Orbiter would serious tax NASA's new safeguards and rescue modes. They plan on having a 2nd Shuttle ready to launch on the pad as a rescue vehicle while a mission is in progress. Considering how long to takes to prep an Orbiter, having just two of them would be a serious condition.
I'm a writer and computer tech, not a developer, so I send in few bug reports unless I'm personally testing a beta. I know a little bit of the programming world to understand the dilemma.
As a former media editor for the publishers of the "For Dummies" books back in the mid-1990s, I did quite a bit of correction on computer how-to text and the CD documentation it needed. Even today, if you pick up one of those books with a CD, the text I created there is still in the same basic structure, even after 8 years or so. And if a For Dummies book was confusing, that was a very bad thing, indeed.
In the case of books, the job of authors and publishers to fix errata. Usually publishers don't fix only minor errors until a new edition. However, many authors have their own private web page (or one that is made by the publisher) where errata can be downloaded.
But we are comparing apples and oranges.
A book is a professionally developed product that is designed to attract a reader, be purchased, and give a reader information or entertainment, all while being understandable.
MAN pages and other computer docs are optional to read, but give vital information and instruction. However, they are poorly written not because the developer is unintelligent, but because the art of writing clearly, concisely and simply in their native language takes a separate mindshift out of the chaotic world of programming and its logical language.
It's a little offtopic, but anyone who's seen the opening text of the video game Zero Wing knows well how writing clearly can make a difference.
I'm a computer tech and consultant that generally putters with programming. I wasn't too shocked to see, as I moved to Mac OS X, how badly the man help and documentation files were written.
My career involves many publishing venues, including a very popular book publisher and a city newspaper. While most developers are very adept at their work, self-expression or documentation is not their strong suit in general. The text is jargon-rich and circular, presuming that the reader already has a knowledge base equal to that of the writer.
This one point alone is why Linux and almost all other UNIX blends and clones never get the attention they seek. It's not that the OS is rotten (far from it), but because users have NO FRICKIN' CLUE what to do with it, including installing the OS (which programmers should really assume will be atop or supplementing Windows), and the help information is incomprehensible, if it exists at all.
Further, the diversity of X Window-based interfaces (window managers and desktop managers like KDE) are too diverse, leaving users very confused where anything is. Mac OS X is essentially the only UNIX clone/blend that a grandma can use. Sure, grandma CAN use Linux, but who's going to teach her how in a way that is understandable? She certainly won't try to READ how.
My humble opinion is that programmers should stop trying to steal the likenesses of Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X and attempt to kidnap the companies' marketing and human interface staff!