Yes it is, and that is good. Like first it would allow to build specialized versions of OS running software specified by a consumer. Not a mess version as is now.
Modularity gives you one great aspect if you compare it to packed version. You can always upgrade one portion only, without touching other parts. Upgrading whole pack is proven to be expensive, while older software can't work as it was with older version. Modularity exludes that option, which makes that product more affordable and enjoyable to the consumer.
Actually, based on that what you said... Hasn't Microsoft developed Windows Embedded. They SHOULD know their code. Examining is just a legal excuse to extend trial, and not need.
Either that, or they should better explain how every version is faster, better and more stable than previous one (not in real world, only in commercials). If you're right then they don't know their products enough to claim such things. In fact you say that they aren't aware what their products can do
No actualy that tactic is bad. If they need so much time for backing them selves up, do they really know the product they're selling?
Actualy tax state dollars are going to be paid if they loose. I don't know for America but everywhere else, looser is paying the costs of trial. So that makes either that you're wrong, or America has stupid legal system. In first case it is much more in favor of ste winning the case if you concern the taxpayer point of view.
Open email and surf the web? Tell me one OS you can't do that.
Actually psichology is on States side. Backing up with sure evidence that everybody's interested in... even judge. But from a good cause => not to prolong trial.
If they would expose that evidence it was obvoius that Microsofts side would want to try to deny that in any case. Testing capabilities of OS just isn't sometehing that would done like "Here it is, it works" There are details that would be considered as separate parts of this evidence. Not considered that Windows is "in one part as is"
But if you take your self on Microsoft side, you could try to run NASA on that Windows, and first think that doesn't work as it should be it would be "Here is evidence".
As next bad view of this evidence is that Microsoft could extend that to infinity. Add a few service packs that would back them up, (this service packs would be probably made to prove that they are right, and made from *NEEDED* point of view)
Soback up the states pulling that evidence from the trial. Isn't 6 years enough?
As a longtime MOX user I can tell you're worng. You describe a lack of system features and usabillity, that's not true.
I'm using it back from the first beta and to say the trouth I don't like it. Everything is so painfully slow and suited to customed design.
...The iDisk in OS X is extremely thoroughly integrated Yes I know I can mount iDisk but how painfull that operation is. Everything you run on that system is waiting. Is being slow is userfriendly then yes I agree with you. On the other hand you can always mount any ftp disk on any unix computer just as it is there. Ever tryed ftpfs?
.... I actually run with all files and directories exposed You gotta be kidding, with all invisible files you run with them exposed.
Secondary, yes MOX has web server, with what lacks of configuration, one at least one part of controling is in control panel, one is divided between few locations on NetInfo and one is accesible only in console mode.
As for file system. Go in terminal mode and use terminal commands to move between parts of file system. File system looked from point of some root user can be described as a nightmare. Even in Aqua run sherlok and try to find some Laserwriter. You'll otice how many times on different locations same files appear.
Preferences you describe as so golden are thrown all over the system, there is no more Preferences folder like it used to be. Now there is 5 different prefferences folders for every account you use, not to mention some applications store preferences inside.app folder, what makes them impossible to see because Finder doesn't show inside this folders.
...The/etc files are entirely obsoleted by NetInfo. First time you'll install sambaX you will notice how nice is to add another place for preferences/etc. Yeah, that's great.
To create a startup deamon you need. Try you'll almoust find your self programming a new piece of software at least compared to any other unix I know.
Applications you brag, well they just arent as easy to copy all over as they used to be, ain't that true. Small ones yes but something bigger. That's one of main differences between hfs and ufs. Hfs had internal catalog of files you moved, and where you moved, with ufs that option just isn't working, is optional for desktop icons that MOX has always preloaded but not for everything.
...and can be installed and deinstalled simply by drag and drop You gotta be kidding, or you don't know. NOT ANYMORE now it's just like any other system as I described to you. If you don't believe just run a snaphot file of harddisk before and after installing.
I admit MOX looks great,.... for one or two hours, then interface just gets painfull and boring.... and SLOOOW
I guess all I wanna say is, I like simplicity of MOX but not enough to exchange for complexity of others.
Internet music sharing is most common wide spread commercial that's possible. There are only two kinds of people, the ones who nuy, and the ones who don't. So if some performers songs don't reach buying public (mostly because of a poor commercial), they don't sell, this way makes it possible to push samples all over the world for free.
RIAA is just bullshiting just like BSA. No common good, just turning a people away of buying products.
Nope, if they would do that they would lost their money, MOX being on APple only is their only insurance people would buy Macs. Mac is just too expensive for common market to be interesting. So anybody with intention to run Linux wuold just buy common PC. Mac just isn't superior hardware, it's piece of a classy high breed with only approved hardware, but if you take that off, you just get a $1000PC.
If you would read a bit more carefully, they aren't implementing nothing, they are more like de-plementing some already implemented software.
Strange, not long after their deal with Microsoft has ended, they already have decided to play hardball (with everybody who has helped them gain a DTP market), a game that usually ends with consequences. First Sorensen, now deplementing Windows version, if they make another move in that direction, that would be probably swaping IE for Mozilla.
It's nothing than another try to make (straith edge - gain to Apple) competition loss, but real question is who will gain and who will loss. They will keep Linux and Irix versions for one reason only, not to loose complete movie market clientelle, but on the other hand that means that Apple version will be the only one evolving and other will evolve only to be abandoned.
Apple is either suffering from..... some financial needs we don't know, or some hopes that this is their time to breaktrough. But as it's concerning me they just wanna be second Microsoft.
They don't. They don't integrate their own browser and removing IE wasn't a pain on MacOS. On MacOS X I just avoid that option, at least until I don't know what everything to remove.
I agreem but try to remove that shell. Gnome and Kde you can simply remove if you don't wan't to use them. But all Linux setup engines allow you to install without Kde and Gnome.
So there are two aspects of shell, removable and not removable. And because IE is so tightly integrated in a shell that makes hard way to be competitive for companies like Netscape. Don't you agree
Back then they just needed commercials how their hardware runs unix, so I wouldn't really agree about that.
As for anti-bussines, there are proprietary solution rinning on linux and freebsd. In fact more and more if you watch their development. First push for proprietary software isn't platform, but customers in linux case, that are small companys that can already afford to run their bussines on linux. Not to be pushing linux on desktop (in fact I do where that feels reasonable and usable), but most of the users depend on web, e-mail, project management and office software, there is a small need for instant messaging but that one is covered too. Because of nature of my developments based on web software, there is no need for windows or macos client (they are just too expensive for that kind of work). So: the bigger the number of this small users will get, the bigger will be demands for some special proprietary software.
On the other hand if you look at movie companys switching to linux, that's one hell of a clientele. Company that was selling them software could hardly refuse that kind of demand. If not now then never.
I'm interested in one thing: how good should be some commercial that would be valuable enough to compare to Gimp once Gimp gets cmyk. Now it's easy. Photoshop is high-end solution, it has value and it's worth the money you pay. But no coverage on one platform could lead some free project evolves to a degree where competition is practically impossible. Releasing applications now, would just mean securing grounds on that teritory not necessary big (if any) proffit. But if, and when there would be that kind of demand that piece of software would just became thrird party and obsolete, just wouldn't be that important on that platform because users would't wan't to switch from software everybody has and everybody is familiar with. On the second hand that companys not releasing software for that platform, make a good territory for new companys that wouldn't last a week in some more competitive environment, but that platform is new and competition does not exist yet (so if you ask me this is a hell of a ground).
As I already discussed once (different place, different occasion), there are 4 kinds of linux users. Zealots - rude, loud and disruptive, would never buy or support anything Common developers - Well at least I buy, but being in communication with others they are the same, but sometimes they feel the world belongs to them Users - Don't really know the difference, would pirate and buy just like in other OS world Companys - Forced to buy software if there is no free solution to their need, or solution that they would compromise with. But even if there is a free solution they need some other company to set them up that solution, so if they aren't buying software, they are buying people to set them up that solution.
So where is the difference?
I don't see QT on FreeBSD? NetBSD (Apple should support them selves) yes, but FreeBSD??
I wouldn't really agree with that. Ther ARE making money of software. MacOSX is just one of non-profit platforms they build other solutions on. Building it on some other OS would mean more competition.
I don't know but if I recollect, they make serious money on OSX server, Quicktime pro, Quicktime streaming server, Final cut pro. On their own platform competition just isn't strong as on some other vendors platform.
And yes, hardware is a bigger part of their incomings.
My opinion is that putting pressure on Apple won't have any affect. Apple is pushing their own Unix and is probably not interested to make a QT plugin for thrird party Unix. Availability of Linux for PPC is probably a threat (or more like a bug) in their eyes and supporting Linux would be probably inappropriate and agains bussines nature in their eyes.
Wall mart machines are cheap. So cheap modoem is to be expected. I preffer HP desktops w/o OS (I would like to see Dell w/o Windows, but that takes time because you have to preorder it so). Any linux runs great without setting anything.
The only thing that makes me sad is thay are adding Mandrake 8.0 as Linux kit. They should probably go with the flow and include something newer (Tested Mdk 8.2 runs perfectly immidietly after install).
As far as your concerns: I think that non-GPL extension to samba would be one of possible solutions. But samba could stay GPL-ed as is.
On the other hand making such extensions would make more troubles to Microsoft than Samba. Who will update old boxes running 95, 98, etc. ? They would be involved in same problem as apple was with MOX, when they stopped supporting old appletalk. Old boxes and NT and linux Appletalk servers just didn't showed up ni chooser. As I asume, I wasn't the only one who bugged Apple about this and if I recollect correctly this was one of major problems issued with MOX when it was released in the forst stage.
I'm 10 years in computer service bussines and I've never heard that kind of things. I've heard that Microsoft drivers cause software bad blocks, IBM even released DFT (must be invoked if driv consists MS Operating System) memo around to resellers.
On the other side, I've already seen for quite a few times Windows destroying MBR block (no Linux was on the scene). This and bad sectors were caused by software error in 90% so I think more like LILO was trying to load from MBR and yes, LILO was causing noisy sounds.
Not to start a flamewar, but counting my machines: Windows disk failures 6 : Linux 0. And I'm mostly deploying linux servers with multiple hard drives.
hehe! Psychology works.:-) I knew you won't stop! Your ego couldn't let you, but don't get me wrong in that, people with attitude are positive. Hard to talk to, but some might even tell something interesting. You see, this post of yours is much more pleasant to read than others! Now, just when your posts have just become interesting... Please, don't leave me now:-)
AC, not me!:-) I like to stand behind my words, as mutilated as they are... and no, I'm not karma whoreing... Just like to be my self.
MsucksCP! s should be lowercase, my mistake:-) Just to understand: sucks is based on my last 10 years when I was using, coding for and supporting damn OS. Anyway this hasn't stoped me from testing XP. My xe3 came preinstalled with them, last one with Win2000pro. God I hate XP (and I thought I hated 2000). Still can't avoid doing my bussiness without them. So I agree, Win is still major desktop player, but just to remind you, original post was about Gnome:-) This paragraph does not need to be answered, I know that one already, I'm still trying to collect 10 cents:-)
Hell, I'm no english, so I can mutilate language without hurting my own feelings.:-) And since I'm already mutilating english, I really don't need to mutilate my self by using Windows for my personal desktop, I like to have uptimes like your domain
You know, I just can't stop, I reeaaaally must have the last word:-) (prognosing your next move... NRTTIMMSWBSASABUHPBGCIWIS)
P.S. could you correct my spelling errors when answering, I'd appreciate it:-)...Only idiots fights just to avoid learning things they don't master.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is, and that is good. Like first it would allow to build specialized versions of OS running software specified by a consumer. Not a mess version as is now.
Modularity gives you one great aspect if you compare it to packed version. You can always upgrade one portion only, without touching other parts. Upgrading whole pack is proven to be expensive, while older software can't work as it was with older version. Modularity exludes that option, which makes that product more affordable and enjoyable to the consumer.
By the way, AOL is moving to Gecko.
Because unix works.
Browser in kernel? Why don't you build Empire state building in your kitchen. It'd look great as New York.
Actually, based on that what you said... Hasn't Microsoft developed Windows Embedded. They SHOULD know their code. Examining is just a legal excuse to extend trial, and not need.
Either that, or they should better explain how every version is faster, better and more stable than previous one (not in real world, only in commercials). If you're right then they don't know their products enough to claim such things. In fact you say that they aren't aware what their products can do
It's simple. By the time this evidence would be presented, there would be so many security patches that nothing would work anymore
No actualy that tactic is bad. If they need so much time for backing them selves up, do they really know the product they're selling?
Actualy tax state dollars are going to be paid if they loose. I don't know for America but everywhere else, looser is paying the costs of trial. So that makes either that you're wrong, or America has stupid legal system.
In first case it is much more in favor of ste winning the case if you concern the taxpayer point of view.
Open email and surf the web? Tell me one OS you can't do that.
Actually psichology is on States side. Backing up with sure evidence that everybody's interested in... even judge. But from a good cause => not to prolong trial.
If they would expose that evidence it was obvoius that Microsofts side would want to try to deny that in any case. Testing capabilities of OS just isn't sometehing that would done like "Here it is, it works" There are details that would be considered as separate parts of this evidence. Not considered that Windows is "in one part as is"
But if you take your self on Microsoft side, you could try to run NASA on that Windows, and first think that doesn't work as it should be it would be "Here is evidence".
As next bad view of this evidence is that Microsoft could extend that to infinity. Add a few service packs that would back them up, (this service packs would be probably made to prove that they are right, and made from *NEEDED* point of view)
Soback up the states pulling that evidence from the trial. Isn't 6 years enough?
As a longtime MOX user I can tell you're worng. You describe a lack of system features and usabillity, that's not true.
.app folder, what makes them impossible to see because Finder doesn't show inside this folders.
/etc files are entirely obsoleted by NetInfo. /etc. Yeah, that's great.
.... for one or two hours, then interface just gets painfull and boring. ... and SLOOOW
I'm using it back from the first beta and to say the trouth I don't like it. Everything is so painfully slow and suited to customed design.
...The iDisk in OS X is extremely thoroughly integrated
Yes I know I can mount iDisk but how painfull that operation is. Everything you run on that system is waiting. Is being slow is userfriendly then yes I agree with you. On the other hand you can always mount any ftp disk on any unix computer just as it is there. Ever tryed ftpfs?
.... I actually run with all files and directories exposed
You gotta be kidding, with all invisible files you run with them exposed.
Secondary, yes MOX has web server, with what lacks of configuration, one at least one part of controling is in control panel, one is divided between few locations on NetInfo and one is accesible only in console mode.
As for file system. Go in terminal mode and use terminal commands to move between parts of file system. File system looked from point of some root user can be described as a nightmare. Even in Aqua run sherlok and try to find some Laserwriter. You'll otice how many times on different locations same files appear.
Preferences you describe as so golden are thrown all over the system, there is no more Preferences folder like it used to be. Now there is 5 different prefferences folders for every account you use, not to mention some applications store preferences inside
...The
First time you'll install sambaX you will notice how nice is to add another place for preferences
To create a startup deamon you need. Try you'll almoust find your self programming a new piece of software at least compared to any other unix I know.
Applications you brag, well they just arent as easy to copy all over as they used to be, ain't that true. Small ones yes but something bigger. That's one of main differences between hfs and ufs. Hfs had internal catalog of files you moved, and where you moved, with ufs that option just isn't working, is optional for desktop icons that MOX has always preloaded but not for everything.
...and can be installed and deinstalled simply by drag and drop
You gotta be kidding, or you don't know. NOT ANYMORE now it's just like any other system as I described to you. If you don't believe just run a snaphot file of harddisk before and after installing.
I admit MOX looks great,
I guess all I wanna say is, I like simplicity of MOX but not enough to exchange for complexity of others.
GPL is just an excuse for not porting software on linux. If it wasn't GPL it would be some other lame excuse.
"De-plementing" was the best word I found to contrary to "im-plementing". :-) But then again I could be wrong.
Internet music sharing is most common wide spread commercial that's possible. There are only two kinds of people, the ones who nuy, and the ones who don't. So if some performers songs don't reach buying public (mostly because of a poor commercial), they don't sell, this way makes it possible to push samples all over the world for free.
RIAA is just bullshiting just like BSA. No common good, just turning a
people away of buying products.
Nope, if they would do that they would lost their money, MOX being on APple only is their only insurance people would buy Macs. Mac is just too expensive for common market to be interesting. So anybody with intention to run Linux wuold just buy common PC. Mac just isn't superior hardware, it's piece of a classy high breed with only approved hardware, but if you take that off, you just get a $1000PC.
If you would read a bit more carefully, they aren't implementing nothing, they are more like de-plementing some already implemented software.
Strange, not long after their deal with Microsoft has ended, they already have decided to play hardball (with everybody who has helped them gain a DTP market), a game that usually ends with consequences. First Sorensen, now deplementing Windows version, if they make another move in that direction, that would be probably swaping IE for Mozilla.
It's nothing than another try to make (straith edge - gain to Apple) competition loss, but real question is who will gain and who will loss. They will keep Linux and Irix versions for one reason only, not to loose complete movie market clientelle, but on the other hand that means that Apple version will be the only one evolving and other will evolve only to be abandoned.
Apple is either suffering from..... some financial needs we don't know, or some hopes that this is their time to breaktrough. But as it's concerning me they just wanna be second Microsoft.
In fact I did it once for fun. It's complicated, I agree, but not as far as it is to remove IE in Windows.
:-)
In fact is just a simple script.
log to gnome ftp
ls >/gnome-rpms.txt
2nd script: read this file, for every file remove extension and version, then execute
rpm -e --nodeps thisfile
you know, the hardest part of unistall is to strip filenames
I can even look for this script if you want it. For this message I haven't bothered to make correct script.
They don't. They don't integrate their own browser and removing IE wasn't a pain on MacOS. On MacOS X I just avoid that option, at least until I don't know what everything to remove.
I agreem but try to remove that shell. Gnome and Kde you can simply remove if you don't wan't to use them. But all Linux setup engines allow you to install without Kde and Gnome.
So there are two aspects of shell, removable and not removable. And because IE is so tightly integrated in a shell that makes hard way to be competitive for companies like Netscape. Don't you agree
Back then they just needed commercials how their hardware runs unix, so I wouldn't really agree about that.
As for anti-bussines, there are proprietary solution rinning on linux and freebsd. In fact more and more if you watch their development. First push for proprietary software isn't platform, but customers in linux case, that are small companys that can already afford to run their bussines on linux. Not to be pushing linux on desktop (in fact I do where that feels reasonable and usable), but most of the users depend on web, e-mail, project management and office software, there is a small need for instant messaging but that one is covered too. Because of nature of my developments based on web software, there is no need for windows or macos client (they are just too expensive for that kind of work).
So: the bigger the number of this small users will get, the bigger will be demands for some special proprietary software.
On the other hand if you look at movie companys switching to linux, that's one hell of a clientele. Company that was selling them software could hardly refuse that kind of demand. If not now then never.
I'm interested in one thing: how good should be some commercial that would be valuable enough to compare to Gimp once Gimp gets cmyk. Now it's easy. Photoshop is high-end solution, it has value and it's worth the money you pay. But no coverage on one platform could lead some free project evolves to a degree where competition is practically impossible.
Releasing applications now, would just mean securing grounds on that teritory not necessary big (if any) proffit. But if, and when there would be that kind of demand that piece of software would just became thrird party and obsolete, just wouldn't be that important on that platform because users would't wan't to switch from software everybody has and everybody is familiar with.
On the second hand that companys not releasing software for that platform, make a good territory for new companys that wouldn't last a week in some more competitive environment, but that platform is new and competition does not exist yet (so if you ask me this is a hell of a ground).
As I already discussed once (different place, different occasion), there are 4 kinds of linux users.
Zealots - rude, loud and disruptive, would never buy or support anything
Common developers - Well at least I buy, but being in communication with others they are the same, but sometimes they feel the world belongs to them
Users - Don't really know the difference, would pirate and buy just like in other OS world
Companys - Forced to buy software if there is no free solution to their need, or solution that they would compromise with. But even if there is a free solution they need some other company to set them up that solution, so if they aren't buying software, they are buying people to set them up that solution.
So where is the difference?
I don't see QT on FreeBSD? NetBSD (Apple should support them selves) yes, but FreeBSD??
I wouldn't really agree with that. Ther ARE making money of software. MacOSX is just one of non-profit platforms they build other solutions on. Building it on some other OS would mean more competition.
I don't know but if I recollect, they make serious money on OSX server, Quicktime pro, Quicktime streaming server, Final cut pro. On their own platform competition just isn't strong as on some other vendors platform.
And yes, hardware is a bigger part of their incomings.
My opinion is that putting pressure on Apple won't have any affect. Apple is pushing their own Unix and is probably not interested to make a QT plugin for thrird party Unix. Availability of Linux for PPC is probably a threat (or more like a bug) in their eyes and supporting Linux would be probably inappropriate and agains bussines nature in their eyes.
Mod me up, if I'm getting it wrong!
Wall mart machines are cheap. So cheap modoem is to be expected. I preffer HP desktops w/o OS (I would like to see Dell w/o Windows, but that takes time because you have to preorder it so). Any linux runs great without setting anything.
The only thing that makes me sad is thay are adding Mandrake 8.0 as Linux kit. They should probably go with the flow and include something newer (Tested Mdk 8.2 runs perfectly immidietly after install).
No, they havent dropped it, thay just can't. But Home Edition can't login to domain while Win98 and WinMe could.
They also dropped NetBeui from list of choice in Network settings.
They just can't drop tcp/ip, how will they access internet?
As far as your concerns: I think that non-GPL extension to samba would be one of possible solutions. But samba could stay GPL-ed as is.
On the other hand making such extensions would make more troubles to Microsoft than Samba. Who will update old boxes running 95, 98, etc. ? They would be involved in same problem as apple was with MOX, when they stopped supporting old appletalk. Old boxes and NT and linux Appletalk servers just didn't showed up ni chooser. As I asume, I wasn't the only one who bugged Apple about this and if I recollect correctly this was one of major problems issued with MOX when it was released in the forst stage.
HP is selling w/o OS PCs shiped with Linux kit. Install is smooth and easy. Only linux certified hardware.
:-)
So, buy a HP, I'm buying them already mostly w/o.
I'm 10 years in computer service bussines and I've never heard that kind of things. I've heard that Microsoft drivers cause software bad blocks, IBM even released DFT (must be invoked if driv consists MS Operating System) memo around to resellers.
On the other side, I've already seen for quite a few times Windows destroying MBR block (no Linux was on the scene). This and bad sectors were caused by software error in 90% so I think more like LILO was trying to load from MBR and yes, LILO was causing noisy sounds.
Not to start a flamewar, but counting my machines: Windows disk failures 6 : Linux 0. And I'm mostly deploying linux servers with multiple hard drives.
And for automatic
XVidMode extension
hehe! Psychology works. :-) I knew you won't stop! Your ego couldn't let you, but don't get me wrong in that, people with attitude are positive. Hard to talk to, but some might even tell something interesting. You see, this post of yours is much more pleasant to read than others! Now, just when your posts have just become interesting... Please, don't leave me now :-)
:-) I like to stand behind my words, as mutilated as they are... and no, I'm not karma whoreing... Just like to be my self.
:-) :-) This paragraph does not need to be answered, I know that one already, I'm still trying to collect 10 cents :-)
:-) And since I'm already mutilating english, I really don't need to mutilate my self by using Windows for my personal desktop, I like to have uptimes like your domain
:-)
:-) ...Only idiots fights just to avoid learning things they don't master.
AC, not me!
MsucksCP! s should be lowercase, my mistake
Just to understand: sucks is based on my last 10 years when I was using, coding for and supporting damn OS. Anyway this hasn't stoped me from testing XP. My xe3 came preinstalled with them, last one with Win2000pro. God I hate XP (and I thought I hated 2000). Still can't avoid doing my bussiness without them. So I agree, Win is still major desktop player, but just to remind you, original post was about Gnome
Hell, I'm no english, so I can mutilate language without hurting my own feelings.
You know, I just can't stop, I reeaaaally must have the last word
(prognosing your next move... NRTTIMMSWBSASABUHPBGCIWIS)
P.S. could you correct my spelling errors when answering, I'd appreciate it