You don't know what's going on behind the scenes in OS X? But you do in Windows? WTF? How much more clueless do people get. You get tools to monitor and look at every minute thing on your OS X installation from simple things like lsof to netstat to packet capturing and analysis tools, freaking dtrace and if that's not enough you can always download the source code for the kernel (Darwin) and look at that as well.
That's not my definition of just works. I have computers running for quite a bit longer than that without reboot that run smoothly and just as fast as the first day several years later. This is not quite feasible with Windows that gets progressively slower the longer you use it, not to mention that Windows installations need quite a bit more baby sitting to keep them going unlike pretty much any other OS out there.
an agreed upon way to communicate and it should be chosen by the team rather than imposed on them. People who think otherwise, especially people who think they can reduce software development to a process are really claiming that they can implement artificial intelligence using people pushing paper as their computing model. Any computer scientist will laugh at the idea, but it does not stop pure managers trying to do exactly that.
Actually, with Skype you don't do that. With Skype you call their phone, since a hypothetical grandmother living across the ocean does not use a computer nor does she have Internet access.
Skype allows unlimited world calling for just $100 a year (i.e. Skype to regular or mobile phone). I don't know of many others that offer service like that at competitive price and good stability and availability (I have Skype on iPhone and can use it on the go and make calls through 3G connection and it's available for pretty much any other mobile phone and of course desktop OSes).
Honestly, I don't have any use for optical media reader/writer in my computers and especially not in my mobile computers. It's such a waste of space and it could be used for more useful things like second SSD drive. In fact, having SSD with conventional larger drive in a mobile computer would be a killer.
I burned my last DVD ages ago, and I install all my software by either directly downloading or by having it on some kind of faster media, flash or hard drive.
There has been Wine Bottler (wrap entire windows app around Wine API and run on Linux) for a long time, but that alone is not enough to make everyone suddenly start using Linux.
I don't think this is going to have profound effect that Microsoft is hoping. These people are just completely blind to why iOS is succeeding (otherwise they would probably come up with a viable competitor). iOS + well put together hardware + app eco system = complete refined user experience that's hard to replicate without a lot of work, strong vision and direction and impeccable execution. Microsoft just lack in the vision and direction department, they are showing again and again they can't innovate, and almost anything worthwhile they have was not thought of or developed (at least initially) in house.
From technology stack RIM is a horrible fit for Apple. Considering RIM is built on Windows and related toolchain (back office and services, not device OS or device apps) and employs mostly Windows developers, it would more sense for Microsoft to purchase them. But I don't know how likely that is any more. Microsoft first has to chew and spit out Nokia before it considers buying/partnering with another telco.
Just look at the state of development tools for BB and you will be shocked at how primitive they are, how windows centric and how involved it is to get started. Actually developer tools are even more behind the state of the art (more than 5 years) than the BB handsets. In this day and age when one can issue BASH one liner to get entire Android code base and all the tools from any UNIXish machine, having something primitive as BB dev tools is an embarrassment.
Re:More american-centric blabbering.
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
The rest of the world does not pump fructose into absolutely everything you eat. If you go to a typical American grocery store, you will not be able to buy anything there that does not have fructose in it, except raw meat and nuts/unprocessed grains (which are hard to find). But buy anything that's wasn't killed yesterday and still bleeding and it will have fructose added to it.
The biggest offenders are pop sodas, ice cream, baked goods (and not just deserts but something innocuous looking as bread), etc and it will have fructose load. The reason for this is that fructose overproduction is subsidized by the government (just like corn production) and it's so ultra cheap that it is added to everything (fructose also adds to food stability, it absorbs moisture just like it does in intestines and keeps food looking fresh longer), so manufacturers just love it.
Funny thing is that high fructose corn syrup (major source of fructose in food) is not a natural product. When you process corn you get glucose, but glucose simply doesn't taste as sweet, so it's chemically transformed to 100% fructose, but that's too sweet, so it's diluted down to usually 65/35 split of fructose/glucose.
Cane sugar (regular sucrose knows as white sugar) is too expensive in North America and is not used in any commercial food production. Hence all the rave about "regular" coke in the USA that's made with regular white sugar that people elsewhere in the world enjoy every day.
Average American ends up eating up to 150 grams of fructose. If we were hunter gatherers, you would have to eat 100 kg of fruit to get that much fructose naturally, so that's a real problem here.
15 grams or less of fructose a day are perfectly fine, but it's hard to get that little fructose in North America when virtually anything you eat has it added.
So, the real evil here is as usually not the substance, but economy that made it so cheap and readily available.
Sorry, but Alan is full of himself and has not actually debunked anything. That guy simply refuses to listen to any argument that goes against his thesis, and he seems more on the agenda than Dr. Lustig. He chooses to completely ignore biochemistry and relies on trollish little gotchas here and there.
Let's be more precise here...
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
What is actually claimed is not that sugar (rather generic term which can mean carbohydrate) is toxic, but specifically that fructose has similar effect on the liver metabolism as alcohol (diabetics have fatty liver just like alcoholics), and fructose negative effect on the liver is worsened if caloric needs are already met. Specifically, if fructose metabolism in the liver is compared to alcohol metabolism you will see similar/same by-products of both. The claims made are verifiable, although a do require a bit biochemistry understanding.
There isn't much left any more that runs only on Windows these days. Mac OS X runs everything from Adobe, it has great driver support, Camera manufacturers make RAW image software for it, and there are apps for pretty much anything. If you are a student or like tinkering with programming all tools are available out of the box, and things are so much simpler to get and get going (wget, uzip, make, make install).
Really the only think keeping users locked into Windows is ignorance these days
You basically have two choices: 1 stay true to some ideal of freedom and refuse to do business in those places. or 2. follow your obligation to the shareholders and increase the price of the stock by doing business in another lucrative market.
Now do you really expect a corporation to have moral values or freedom ideals. Unless there is some national (home) law they are breaking, this is a complete non-issue.
That's a rather narrow meaning you have for "run the company". Part of running the company is building and projecting positive image about the company and that means a CEO who is acutely aware of the current hot issues pertaining to the company and who is prepared to diffuse the situation with a well thought out answer. I'm not even implying that he has to come up with the answer himself, that's what his team he has built is all about and that presumably includes lawyers etc, who could spin this issue however you want.
the math part seems easy, I think my entrance exam (math part) was actually harder. A lot of rote calculation there, that is rarely seen at University exams these days.
It's been over 21 yeas since I had any exposure to Latin, so I can read the thing and understand a few words here and there, but no way I could translate those sentences. No academic exposure to Greek whatsoever.
I would do OK in the geography part, but then again it strikes me as too fact recall based rather than understanding of processes type of thing.
No, no one runs their web server on Mac OS X or their database, nor their LDAP server nor their application. Sure, there are desktop apps, it's a great client OS for consuming and it's great for creating content too and like I said certain type of development. But, haven't you heard the news, desktop is irrelevant. Only companies whose core competency is software that happened to run well on the desktop still develop for it. But even they see the tides of change and Adobe is trying to put Photoshop in the cloud. Eclipse is trying out developer IDE in the cloud.
But don't feel bad, even Microsoft doesn't know desktop is old news. Because of their desire to shove Windows and office on it down everyone's throat, they married themselves to it.
Why are Microsoft developers so decidedly stupid? No, what I mean by stability is ls or cat or find etc has not changed in 30 years. And they don't need to. They did it right the first time and these tools benefit greatly from stability. The BASH scripts from 1991 still run perfectly fine. Does that mean innovation has stopped. Hell no. Things can change, kernels can change, user facing APIs and toolkit can change, there are virtually dozens of filesystems users can choose to install depending on their needs, but do I care. No, you see my script from 1991 still runs on them. Look at Mac OS X, it does nto look like any other UNIX but fire up Terminal and you will never mistake it for one.
Saying Microsoft and innovation in the same sentence? Seriously? Seriously???? Damn kids today. Learn your history. Microsoft is dieing exactly because they never could innovate. They can steal and outright buy ideas and companies. But innovate they can't. I don't know nor care why any more (probably something to do with their culture and the fact that their reputation is so damaged that really smart people refuse to work there).
What about it? At best mediocre IDE (for C or C++ development it's downright primitive). But for people that live in MS world they can only use and know of Visual Studio (and majority of them could not program their way out of paper box without it).
Who's talking about kernels here. We are talking about the whole package. Yes kernel is obviously important, but so is almost everything else. Yes, I know you can run Cygwin or a product a company I work for develops (MKS Toolkit - http://www.mkssoftware.com/products/tk/commands.asp?product=tkdev, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKS_Toolkit). These are valiant efforts to bring some of the flavor of UNIX to Windows, and our product enables you to port your UNIX POSIX API based software to Windows, you get X-Server etc, but still you are in the end working on Windows and you still have to buy Windows license etc.
Honestly, these things are completely unnecessary now, because desktop is not where it's at. Your comment and thinking is still stuck in the 90s desktop mentality (kind of like entire Microsoft). I'm talking about the Web 2.0 startup world, where Microsoft is literally dead (in the sense that no new Web startup is afraid of Microsoft or is worried Microsoft is going to destroy them).
You would be a complete idiot to go buy lots of Windows server licenses to deploy your solution, you'd be an idiot to buy Visual Studio or any Microsoft tool. You will use open free tools that are often superior anyway to anything Microsoft has to offer (UNIX and supporting toolchain is the best IDE ever created). Of course Microsoft's goal is to keep you ignorant. The less you know, the more likely you will keep buying their crap. But you won't see Google or Facebook or any new Web startup deploying on their tools or OSes.
I'm 40 now, I learned my way around UNIX 25 years ago and kept at it. I bet you 20 years from now I'll still be leveraging my investment while Microsofties will be learning whatever it is Microsoft is shoving down their throats (which has everything to do with what they think is best for them and nothing to do what's good for you as a customer or person building something of value). But sure, go ahead live in Microsoft world and keep re-inventing the world poorly.
I like OS X and Mac (writing this post from one), it's a good platform to develop certain types of software, but no one, I mean no one ever, anywhere uses Mac OS X to deploy their software on Mac or OS X, virtualized or otherwise.
Most people who develop on Mac, deploy on some kind of Linux.
They should get on with the program and scrap the pile of shit they call Windows and build something around the UNIX kernel and run legacy apps in VM like they virtualize XP now.
UNIX has won for pretty much anything from phone to big iron servers and only people who don't know better still use Windows in this day and age and willingly pay licenses (for Windows, SQL server and development tools) to their direct competitor (Microsoft) to stay in business (yeah I know, it sounds really dumb). Meanwhile everyone else that matters in post Microsoft world uses open OSes, leveraging their investment is stable APIs, great free tools and go on about innovating with the only cost being hardware and (usually smarter) people.
If making a good product were all that is needed to succeed, do you think 90% of the world would be using Windows on their desktop right now?
It does not follow that demand is driven by Apple. Apple may at best be manufacturing desires and wants in the consumers that only they can fulfill, with their smart marketing campaigns and image they are creating about their products (but companies have been doing that forever now). But they also happen to have not only a good product, but better overall user experience than any competitor ( Apple has never competed on specs even with their desktop/laptop products). It's easy to outspec almost any Apple product for less money, but people that do that always miss the point. They buy faster hardware (but when it comes to desktops usually one that requires noisy cooling) for less money, install Windows on it and then they end up with crappy OS/ecosystem, that is severely lacking in usability, and are working with a computer that sounds like a helicopter. But they can run benchmarks a few percent faster.
Apple on the other hand sells hardware that's downright beautiful, minimalistic, clean (have you seen PC keyboards lately? It's like driving through Las Vegas at midnight, with so many labels on each key fighting for your attention), hardware that has decent performance but is not noisy or intrusive, and they have OS that seamlessly works with it, that is also minimalistic and gets out of your way (it's not chatty, it doesn't popup uninvited questions, dialogs with million options on it etc), but is at the same time certified UNIX for people who know what to do with it.
Until other manufacturers realize this, and start competing on overall experience users are having with their products and stop competing on specs (a legacy of having only one OS provider to chose from, so all they could ever do is offer a computer with slightly better specs for less money), they won't make major traction.
Windows XP is completely irrelevant. It's a 10 year old OS that has reached its end of life. Windows in general (despite not being the most popular OS if you include mobile OSes), is also quite irrelevant, since people that use it use (usually equally ancient version of) Internet Explorer, either due to ignorance or due to corporate policy.
People who consider alternatives and settle for Windows on the other hand are not the kind of people whose software tastes should dictate the feature set of open source browser catering to multitude of platforms and users who know better.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know what's going on behind the scenes in OS X? But you do in Windows? WTF? How much more clueless do people get. You get tools to monitor and look at every minute thing on your OS X installation from simple things like lsof to netstat to packet capturing and analysis tools, freaking dtrace and if that's not enough you can always download the source code for the kernel (Darwin) and look at that as well.
That's not my definition of just works. I have computers running for quite a bit longer than that without reboot that run smoothly and just as fast as the first day several years later. This is not quite feasible with Windows that gets progressively slower the longer you use it, not to mention that Windows installations need quite a bit more baby sitting to keep them going unlike pretty much any other OS out there.
an agreed upon way to communicate and it should be chosen by the team rather than imposed on them. People who think otherwise, especially people who think they can reduce software development to a process are really claiming that they can implement artificial intelligence using people pushing paper as their computing model. Any computer scientist will laugh at the idea, but it does not stop pure managers trying to do exactly that.
Actually, with Skype you don't do that. With Skype you call their phone, since a hypothetical grandmother living across the ocean does not use a computer nor does she have Internet access.
Skype allows unlimited world calling for just $100 a year (i.e. Skype to regular or mobile phone). I don't know of many others that offer service like that at competitive price and good stability and availability (I have Skype on iPhone and can use it on the go and make calls through 3G connection and it's available for pretty much any other mobile phone and of course desktop OSes).
Honestly, I don't have any use for optical media reader/writer in my computers and especially not in my mobile computers. It's such a waste of space and it could be used for more useful things like second SSD drive. In fact, having SSD with conventional larger drive in a mobile computer would be a killer.
I burned my last DVD ages ago, and I install all my software by either directly downloading or by having it on some kind of faster media, flash or hard drive.
There has been Wine Bottler (wrap entire windows app around Wine API and run on Linux) for a long time, but that alone is not enough to make everyone suddenly start using Linux. I don't think this is going to have profound effect that Microsoft is hoping. These people are just completely blind to why iOS is succeeding (otherwise they would probably come up with a viable competitor). iOS + well put together hardware + app eco system = complete refined user experience that's hard to replicate without a lot of work, strong vision and direction and impeccable execution. Microsoft just lack in the vision and direction department, they are showing again and again they can't innovate, and almost anything worthwhile they have was not thought of or developed (at least initially) in house.
You can buy faster machine with more RAM than that for less than $300.
Well played, you got both "rim job" and "(Steve ) Jobs safe" there :D.
From technology stack RIM is a horrible fit for Apple. Considering RIM is built on Windows and related toolchain (back office and services, not device OS or device apps) and employs mostly Windows developers, it would more sense for Microsoft to purchase them. But I don't know how likely that is any more. Microsoft first has to chew and spit out Nokia before it considers buying/partnering with another telco.
Just look at the state of development tools for BB and you will be shocked at how primitive they are, how windows centric and how involved it is to get started. Actually developer tools are even more behind the state of the art (more than 5 years) than the BB handsets. In this day and age when one can issue BASH one liner to get entire Android code base and all the tools from any UNIXish machine, having something primitive as BB dev tools is an embarrassment.
The rest of the world does not pump fructose into absolutely everything you eat. If you go to a typical American grocery store, you will not be able to buy anything there that does not have fructose in it, except raw meat and nuts/unprocessed grains (which are hard to find). But buy anything that's wasn't killed yesterday and still bleeding and it will have fructose added to it. The biggest offenders are pop sodas, ice cream, baked goods (and not just deserts but something innocuous looking as bread), etc and it will have fructose load. The reason for this is that fructose overproduction is subsidized by the government (just like corn production) and it's so ultra cheap that it is added to everything (fructose also adds to food stability, it absorbs moisture just like it does in intestines and keeps food looking fresh longer), so manufacturers just love it. Funny thing is that high fructose corn syrup (major source of fructose in food) is not a natural product. When you process corn you get glucose, but glucose simply doesn't taste as sweet, so it's chemically transformed to 100% fructose, but that's too sweet, so it's diluted down to usually 65/35 split of fructose/glucose. Cane sugar (regular sucrose knows as white sugar) is too expensive in North America and is not used in any commercial food production. Hence all the rave about "regular" coke in the USA that's made with regular white sugar that people elsewhere in the world enjoy every day. Average American ends up eating up to 150 grams of fructose. If we were hunter gatherers, you would have to eat 100 kg of fruit to get that much fructose naturally, so that's a real problem here. 15 grams or less of fructose a day are perfectly fine, but it's hard to get that little fructose in North America when virtually anything you eat has it added. So, the real evil here is as usually not the substance, but economy that made it so cheap and readily available.
Sorry, but Alan is full of himself and has not actually debunked anything. That guy simply refuses to listen to any argument that goes against his thesis, and he seems more on the agenda than Dr. Lustig. He chooses to completely ignore biochemistry and relies on trollish little gotchas here and there.
What is actually claimed is not that sugar (rather generic term which can mean carbohydrate) is toxic, but specifically that fructose has similar effect on the liver metabolism as alcohol (diabetics have fatty liver just like alcoholics), and fructose negative effect on the liver is worsened if caloric needs are already met. Specifically, if fructose metabolism in the liver is compared to alcohol metabolism you will see similar/same by-products of both. The claims made are verifiable, although a do require a bit biochemistry understanding.
There isn't much left any more that runs only on Windows these days. Mac OS X runs everything from Adobe, it has great driver support, Camera manufacturers make RAW image software for it, and there are apps for pretty much anything. If you are a student or like tinkering with programming all tools are available out of the box, and things are so much simpler to get and get going (wget, uzip, make, make install). Really the only think keeping users locked into Windows is ignorance these days
You basically have two choices: 1 stay true to some ideal of freedom and refuse to do business in those places. or 2. follow your obligation to the shareholders and increase the price of the stock by doing business in another lucrative market.
Now do you really expect a corporation to have moral values or freedom ideals. Unless there is some national (home) law they are breaking, this is a complete non-issue.
That's a rather narrow meaning you have for "run the company". Part of running the company is building and projecting positive image about the company and that means a CEO who is acutely aware of the current hot issues pertaining to the company and who is prepared to diffuse the situation with a well thought out answer. I'm not even implying that he has to come up with the answer himself, that's what his team he has built is all about and that presumably includes lawyers etc, who could spin this issue however you want.
the math part seems easy, I think my entrance exam (math part) was actually harder. A lot of rote calculation there, that is rarely seen at University exams these days.
It's been over 21 yeas since I had any exposure to Latin, so I can read the thing and understand a few words here and there, but no way I could translate those sentences. No academic exposure to Greek whatsoever.
I would do OK in the geography part, but then again it strikes me as too fact recall based rather than understanding of processes type of thing.
No, no one runs their web server on Mac OS X or their database, nor their LDAP server nor their application. Sure, there are desktop apps, it's a great client OS for consuming and it's great for creating content too and like I said certain type of development. But, haven't you heard the news, desktop is irrelevant. Only companies whose core competency is software that happened to run well on the desktop still develop for it. But even they see the tides of change and Adobe is trying to put Photoshop in the cloud. Eclipse is trying out developer IDE in the cloud.
But don't feel bad, even Microsoft doesn't know desktop is old news. Because of their desire to shove Windows and office on it down everyone's throat, they married themselves to it.
Why are Microsoft developers so decidedly stupid? No, what I mean by stability is ls or cat or find etc has not changed in 30 years. And they don't need to. They did it right the first time and these tools benefit greatly from stability. The BASH scripts from 1991 still run perfectly fine. Does that mean innovation has stopped. Hell no. Things can change, kernels can change, user facing APIs and toolkit can change, there are virtually dozens of filesystems users can choose to install depending on their needs, but do I care. No, you see my script from 1991 still runs on them. Look at Mac OS X, it does nto look like any other UNIX but fire up Terminal and you will never mistake it for one.
Saying Microsoft and innovation in the same sentence? Seriously? Seriously???? Damn kids today. Learn your history. Microsoft is dieing exactly because they never could innovate. They can steal and outright buy ideas and companies. But innovate they can't. I don't know nor care why any more (probably something to do with their culture and the fact that their reputation is so damaged that really smart people refuse to work there).
What about it? At best mediocre IDE (for C or C++ development it's downright primitive). But for people that live in MS world they can only use and know of Visual Studio (and majority of them could not program their way out of paper box without it).
Who's talking about kernels here. We are talking about the whole package. Yes kernel is obviously important, but so is almost everything else. Yes, I know you can run Cygwin or a product a company I work for develops (MKS Toolkit - http://www.mkssoftware.com/products/tk/commands.asp?product=tkdev, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKS_Toolkit). These are valiant efforts to bring some of the flavor of UNIX to Windows, and our product enables you to port your UNIX POSIX API based software to Windows, you get X-Server etc, but still you are in the end working on Windows and you still have to buy Windows license etc.
Honestly, these things are completely unnecessary now, because desktop is not where it's at. Your comment and thinking is still stuck in the 90s desktop mentality (kind of like entire Microsoft). I'm talking about the Web 2.0 startup world, where Microsoft is literally dead (in the sense that no new Web startup is afraid of Microsoft or is worried Microsoft is going to destroy them).
You would be a complete idiot to go buy lots of Windows server licenses to deploy your solution, you'd be an idiot to buy Visual Studio or any Microsoft tool. You will use open free tools that are often superior anyway to anything Microsoft has to offer (UNIX and supporting toolchain is the best IDE ever created). Of course Microsoft's goal is to keep you ignorant. The less you know, the more likely you will keep buying their crap. But you won't see Google or Facebook or any new Web startup deploying on their tools or OSes.
I'm 40 now, I learned my way around UNIX 25 years ago and kept at it. I bet you 20 years from now I'll still be leveraging my investment while Microsofties will be learning whatever it is Microsoft is shoving down their throats (which has everything to do with what they think is best for them and nothing to do what's good for you as a customer or person building something of value). But sure, go ahead live in Microsoft world and keep re-inventing the world poorly.
I like OS X and Mac (writing this post from one), it's a good platform to develop certain types of software, but no one, I mean no one ever, anywhere uses Mac OS X to deploy their software on Mac or OS X, virtualized or otherwise. Most people who develop on Mac, deploy on some kind of Linux.
They should get on with the program and scrap the pile of shit they call Windows and build something around the UNIX kernel and run legacy apps in VM like they virtualize XP now.
UNIX has won for pretty much anything from phone to big iron servers and only people who don't know better still use Windows in this day and age and willingly pay licenses (for Windows, SQL server and development tools) to their direct competitor (Microsoft) to stay in business (yeah I know, it sounds really dumb). Meanwhile everyone else that matters in post Microsoft world uses open OSes, leveraging their investment is stable APIs, great free tools and go on about innovating with the only cost being hardware and (usually smarter) people.
If making a good product were all that is needed to succeed, do you think 90% of the world would be using Windows on their desktop right now?
It does not follow that demand is driven by Apple. Apple may at best be manufacturing desires and wants in the consumers that only they can fulfill, with their smart marketing campaigns and image they are creating about their products (but companies have been doing that forever now). But they also happen to have not only a good product, but better overall user experience than any competitor ( Apple has never competed on specs even with their desktop/laptop products). It's easy to outspec almost any Apple product for less money, but people that do that always miss the point. They buy faster hardware (but when it comes to desktops usually one that requires noisy cooling) for less money, install Windows on it and then they end up with crappy OS/ecosystem, that is severely lacking in usability, and are working with a computer that sounds like a helicopter. But they can run benchmarks a few percent faster.
Apple on the other hand sells hardware that's downright beautiful, minimalistic, clean (have you seen PC keyboards lately? It's like driving through Las Vegas at midnight, with so many labels on each key fighting for your attention), hardware that has decent performance but is not noisy or intrusive, and they have OS that seamlessly works with it, that is also minimalistic and gets out of your way (it's not chatty, it doesn't popup uninvited questions, dialogs with million options on it etc), but is at the same time certified UNIX for people who know what to do with it.
Until other manufacturers realize this, and start competing on overall experience users are having with their products and stop competing on specs (a legacy of having only one OS provider to chose from, so all they could ever do is offer a computer with slightly better specs for less money), they won't make major traction.
Windows XP is completely irrelevant. It's a 10 year old OS that has reached its end of life. Windows in general (despite not being the most popular OS if you include mobile OSes), is also quite irrelevant, since people that use it use (usually equally ancient version of) Internet Explorer, either due to ignorance or due to corporate policy. People who consider alternatives and settle for Windows on the other hand are not the kind of people whose software tastes should dictate the feature set of open source browser catering to multitude of platforms and users who know better.
I don't use Adobe Acrobat even when I'm on Windows let alone on Mac OS X or Linux, so no.