Remember, just because MacOS is a completely BSD-based system, doesn't mean you'll be able to tell it. Apple has stated that the Terminal won't ship with the OS, and you won't be finding very many Unixisms.
Of course, the first thing some of us will be doing is installing a terminal and maybe a few other things, and we'll have all the gooey Unixness that we need. But really, Apple has no interest in scaring off their core markets...
--- Nah. Almost all Be developers came from the Amiga world... They just targetted Mac users... ---
Well, I know that Be has a larger than usual number of ex-Amiga developers, but I'd still say that most came from the Mac (at least, around the time I was heavily involved with the BeOS - between PR1 and R3 mostly).
--- Have you ever seen CBM's "Amiga Style Guide" ? ---
Nope, but I'd be interested in it. Is it available online somewhere?
--- The original poster suggests that intelectual property is such an un-ownable thing. ---
I guess my disagreement is here. Software is an expression of intellectual property - it is a product, albeit intangible. Why? It has a cost of production and a a tangible 'market'. Just because it is stored as bits and bytes doesn't mean anything.
I think you're getting two arguments confused - I hate some of the stupidity going on in the patent system as much as everyone. Patents should be shorter in length as they stifle creativity more than help it along right now. But abolish rights to the ideas you come up with? Nope, I can't go that far I guess.
Note that I have nothing wrong with the idea that some people want to give software away with provisions that they remain open. My problem with the GPL and Stallman is where proprietary software is considered some sort of 'evil', and that people shouldn't have the right to it. This isn't a great evil - perhaps a misforune - but not something that even comes close (in scale or principle) to slavery.
Not really - I generally avoid the Windows side, and feel no compelling reason to defend it (last I checked, you were right - UI standards are lacking there).
On the Unix side, things have traditionally been terrible from the consistancy standpoint. But at least progress is being made. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have any excuse - it's hard to impress on developers that virtues of a consistant UI when even similar Microsoft apps are completely different.
I personally come from a MacOS background (bet you couldn't tell:>), whose main source of influence - Apple - has had a long history of pretty good UI design. The developers, with few exceptions, have been pretty good as well. Admittedly Apple really screwed up with QuickTime 4 and (even moreso) Sherlock 2, but it looks like they might be shaping up even if just a little bit.
BeOS has had a pretty consistant UI between apps, even though it took some time before Be published their UI guidelines. That may have something to do with almost all original BeOS developers coming from the Mac world.
As I mentioned, Unix/Linux seems to be getting better as well. With each release of Gnome and/or Sawmill (and the impending release of Eazel's stuff) I feel less shock upon rebooting into my LinuxPPC partition. I can only hope this trend continues, and developers learn the need for truly intuitive and user friendly interfaces.
What I don't get is why Meyer makes such a big deal about ESR. RMS I can understand, and the first part of this essay was more or less pretty truthful. I can't see how someone can consider access to someone else's work a right rather than a privelege.
But ESR? After Meyer spends a few paragraphs talking about how morality is completely subjective and that bad men can have 'good ideas', he rails against ESR for (of all things) his stance on guns.
Excuse me? Regardless of your opinions on gun control, what does this have to do with open-source development? Absolutely nothing.
Really, I don't get it. ESR's views on open-source/free software are completely pragmatic compared to that of many other open-source luminaries. He focuses on the less politically loaded and questionable aspects (ie. code reuse, peer review, external contributions, and so on).
You'd think that, even if he didn't agree with the specifics of ESR's claims about open-source, he wouldn't feel so compelled to clump ESR and other pragmatists in with RMS and his believers. We're far too diverse a group for that.
--- Of course we know how the consequences of imposing slavery as a false property right led to devistation, do we really want to experience similar consequences with newer and more modern technologies? ---
Are you seriously suggesting that the enslavement of human beings is in any way comparable to someone not letting you hack on their software?
I'm not sure what's more appalling - the fact that you believe that access to code you didn't produce is a moral right is anything like the abolishment of slavery, or the fact that someone somewhere moderated you up as Insightful...
Thanks for the info. Have any 3rd parties (ie. Apple - I can't imagine Microsoft doing so) expressed interest in working on native UI widgets? I'd be very interested in seeing it happen.
I've read/heard all of this before, mostly in the Mozilla UI design newsgroup. I'm pretty familiar with the arguments.
However, when pressed, the main Mozilla folks will blame it on lack of funding for native user interfaces. I'm not sure how designing custom UI widgets is more cost effective than using native UIs, but if this is true then the blame goes to AOL for letting their lack of funding ruin the direction Mozilla's UI has gone.
If they don't want to fund it, don't. At least it won't sully the name of Mozilla with a usability nightmare of a user interface.
Besides, the whole "Web browser as a platform" story is a joke. Frankly, I'd much rather have a decent web browser first. As much as I respect the O'Reilly people, they sure picked the wrong thing to compare Mozilla to. Java apps are notorious for less than acceptable user interface design (yes, even w/Swing).
And no, I'm not talking out my ass.:> In fact, the article you reference even links to a skin that originated from yours truly (since taken over by a very talented guy by the name of Pete). So yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with the technology behind Mozilla's skins/chrome.
Nope, although I've probably got enough caffeine in my system to kill a horse. I doubt that's making a difference, though.
--- To me platform consitency would mean it looking the SAME on most platforms. ---
Umm... Most people who use a given OS use it exclusively, or mostly so. Even if they don't, it's a good bet that they are intimately familiar with the widget set and capabilities of the operating system they use most of the time. Why should we diverge from accepted user interface standards? Should we return to the day when each application had its own user interface? I hope you're not seriously considering such a movement.
--- When I load mozilla on NT it pretty much (minus the window manager) looks the same. that is pretty friggen consistant. ---
But, it's not consistant with the rest of NT. It's certainly not consistant with the MacOS UI. If you install something that performs global changes on the UI (ie. Various themes, Kaleidoscope, etc) then those won't work either. At the very least, this is a pretty blatant duplication of code/effort. At its worst, it's externally inconsistant with the rest of the OS. Bad UI design.
--- Get your head straight and stop dissing a project you most likely know nothing about really. ---
Actually, I do know a bit about the project. I've even done some early work on one of the more popular skins that you can use with it. Check MozillaZine's ChromeZone if you'd like.
Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on something (or in this case, someone) you know nothing about?
I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, as I'm the main Abuse handler for Dreamhost - the web host for rinkworks.com. I mostly handle spam and the odd copyright violation...
The way I see it, what he COULD do is provide an opt-out list of some sort for sites that don't wish to be Dialectized. So, if SomeBigCorp.com doesn't like their site being munged, they can specifically request removal. You don't need to take the whole thing down, just make it fair to all involved. I personally think most people wouldn't mind at all.
You could have a basic MySQL database with domains that have opted out, or a flat-file or something. If the URL being parsed is in the list, the person using the service gets a notice that due to complaint the process can't continue.
SpamCop does something like this as well, for ISPs that don't want spam reports from their service (kind of lame, but...).
I guess the big trick is making sure that the person opting out is legit, but that's mostly an implementation and policy detail.
Anyhow, I hope Mr. Stoddard finds a way around this. It's a pretty nifty site, I think.
<PLUG TYPE="shameless"> Oddly enough, when I first saw the original story I skipped over it. As a web host, I think it's pretty cool that we were prone to the dreaded Slashdot Effect and didn't even notice.:> <PLUG>
BTW: these comments are my own, not that of my employer. etc. etc...
--- On another point: isn't it the OS's duty to create the anti-aliasing in fonts? ---
Yeah, but the Mozilla group doesn't appear to have any qualms overriding the OS when they feel like it (hence the lack of native widgets - so much for platform consistancy).
I guess they're trying to do the Anti-Microsoft. Instead of an OS swallowing up a web browser, damn near everything is going to be part of a browser. Next thing you know, they'll include a fully featured file browser and disk defragmenter in their next release...
<SARCASM> But hey, at least it'll allow people to have polka-dotted CSS-compliant buttons and scrollbars! Forget good UI design, this is the kind of thing web developers need! </SARCASM>
The thing is, there's a certain critical mass. The MacOS can have 1/5th the amount of software that Windows has and remain viable. Many developers of the more important software are dual platform.
Be doesn't have that critical mass. They have a fraction of the MacOS marketshare, which is a fraction of Windows'. And even then, one only needs so many email clients and mp3 players.
Simply put, there are at least 1-2 of each kind of app type for the Mac, and usually several choices. BeOS, in contrast, usually doesn't have a given kind of app - or if they do, it's buggy as hell.
It's a matter of critical mass. Be doesn't have it, Apple does.
Sorry, some people don't equate the _privilege_ of using someone's source code to the _right_ of people to free speech, to be free from enslavement, etc.
RMS = "The code must be free! It's a matter of ethics and morality! What, were you for slavery too? Why, we have a RIGHT to FREE CODE!"
ESR = "Open-sourcing code is great, it has all sorts of benefits for users AND companies. Do it right, and it's a win/win situation."
One is a zealot, one is at least halfway practical. One alienates people, the other embraces them. One understands that people need to make money, the other believes everyone has a grant from a major university to live off of.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which is which.
As another poster said, it's not quite that simple. IE5 for MacOS X is Carbon-based, which basically means that it is based on a rewritten set of traditional MacOS APIs (basically MacOS stripped of the stupid code that has held it back).
It technically runs on a Unix, but so do some Windows apps in Wine. About the same kind of thing, but it's an officially blessed API. You won't be seeing Apple release their APIs any time soon (I wouldn't blame them), and stuff would still need to be recompiled to X86 for most Unix/Linux people to make use of it.
Of course, it doesn't use stuff like X anyhow, so Microsoft would be in for quite a rewrite...
--- I would point out, though, that the version of Disk Setup that comes with MacOS 9 includes an option for recommended LinuxPPC setup ---
Yep. Doesn't sound like the actions of A Great Evil Apple Conspiracy, does it? Sure, it probably took some guy a day to write support for that (if that), but it's still a nice token gesture. Apple's not going to subsidize the development of 3rd party operating systems - which is what I think Be expected - but they're not standing in anyone's way either.
--- For the record, I do subscribe to the view that, whatever Apple did or didn't do, Be was looking for an excuse to drop PowerPC support once they had committed to x86. ---
Right. If they had simply said that they were needing more cash and the PPC space wasn't providing, that would have made more sense. Now I wouldn't agree so much, but at the time the Mac market was pretty downbeat and nobody even knew if Apple would be making PPC-based machines in the future.
Be understood the PR hit they'd take was nothing compared to the new people they'd get from the "other" platform, so pissing off their PPC developers was an acceptable casualty.
Look harder. Everything Be needed is contained within the code for Darwin. Sure, they can't actually use the code, but they could certainly find out whatever boot parameters or 'secret stuff' they needed. Obviously the LinuxPPC people (as well as those in the lengthy list I mentioned) aren't having any trouble. In fact, they've received direct assistance from Apple as well.
Be needed an excuse to abandon their PPC userbase, and Apple was convenient. If they had simply said "Sorry, the volume in the Mac market just isn't enough" I wouldn't have blamed them. The foisting of blame on a 3rd party, though, is about as lame as you can get.
Apple obviously has no intent on blocking Be, and why should they? They'd sell boxes either way, including a copy of the MacOS. Much better than having Be leave their platform.
It's like pinning a murder on someone who has absolutely no motive, and basing your opinion on the words of someone who suddenly got a major cash infusion from a 3rd party (Intel). Apple had no reason to kill BeOS/PPC.
Well, maybe not. I think Rob would have come up with something else very similar for whatever his interest may have been.
Remember, he's got some interest in animation as well. The site could have been like that.
Of course, a geek is a geek. If he didn't get into Linux, he could very well have gotten into BSD or BeOS instead (even, god forbid, HURD). Slashdot has grown with the open-source community - if Linux weren't around it's possible that Slashdot would be smaller, but I bet something like it would still be here.
--- Why following a "cathedral" development model when there are many folks out here willing and eager to help out with your code? ---
Because you can't pile a load of crap on someone's doorstep and expect them to suddenly start fixing everything. You need to give them something to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, just because MacOS is a completely BSD-based system, doesn't mean you'll be able to tell it. Apple has stated that the Terminal won't ship with the OS, and you won't be finding very many Unixisms.
Of course, the first thing some of us will be doing is installing a terminal and maybe a few other things, and we'll have all the gooey Unixness that we need. But really, Apple has no interest in scaring off their core markets...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
:>
I suspect however your brain is playing a small trick on you...
Swapping out Apple and replacing it with Mac.
---
Nope. Slashdot changed it (well, at least they're responsive!).
---
Just wouldn't want you going around correcting people for a mistake they did not make... could be very embaressing
---
BTW, you misspelled emb... *SMACK!*
Nevermind.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Nah. Almost all Be developers came from the Amiga world... They just targetted Mac users...
---
Well, I know that Be has a larger than usual number of ex-Amiga developers, but I'd still say that most came from the Mac (at least, around the time I was heavily involved with the BeOS - between PR1 and R3 mostly).
---
Have you ever seen CBM's "Amiga Style Guide" ?
---
Nope, but I'd be interested in it. Is it available online somewhere?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
The original poster suggests that intelectual property is such an un-ownable thing.
---
I guess my disagreement is here. Software is an expression of intellectual property - it is a product, albeit intangible. Why? It has a cost of production and a a tangible 'market'. Just because it is stored as bits and bytes doesn't mean anything.
I think you're getting two arguments confused - I hate some of the stupidity going on in the patent system as much as everyone. Patents should be shorter in length as they stifle creativity more than help it along right now. But abolish rights to the ideas you come up with? Nope, I can't go that far I guess.
Note that I have nothing wrong with the idea that some people want to give software away with provisions that they remain open. My problem with the GPL and Stallman is where proprietary software is considered some sort of 'evil', and that people shouldn't have the right to it. This isn't a great evil - perhaps a misforune - but not something that even comes close (in scale or principle) to slavery.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Not really - I generally avoid the Windows side, and feel no compelling reason to defend it (last I checked, you were right - UI standards are lacking there).
:>), whose main source of influence - Apple - has had a long history of pretty good UI design. The developers, with few exceptions, have been pretty good as well. Admittedly Apple really screwed up with QuickTime 4 and (even moreso) Sherlock 2, but it looks like they might be shaping up even if just a little bit.
On the Unix side, things have traditionally been terrible from the consistancy standpoint. But at least progress is being made. Microsoft on the other hand doesn't have any excuse - it's hard to impress on developers that virtues of a consistant UI when even similar Microsoft apps are completely different.
I personally come from a MacOS background (bet you couldn't tell
BeOS has had a pretty consistant UI between apps, even though it took some time before Be published their UI guidelines. That may have something to do with almost all original BeOS developers coming from the Mac world.
As I mentioned, Unix/Linux seems to be getting better as well. With each release of Gnome and/or Sawmill (and the impending release of Eazel's stuff) I feel less shock upon rebooting into my LinuxPPC partition. I can only hope this trend continues, and developers learn the need for truly intuitive and user friendly interfaces.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
What I don't get is why Meyer makes such a big deal about ESR. RMS I can understand, and the first part of this essay was more or less pretty truthful. I can't see how someone can consider access to someone else's work a right rather than a privelege.
But ESR? After Meyer spends a few paragraphs talking about how morality is completely subjective and that bad men can have 'good ideas', he rails against ESR for (of all things) his stance on guns.
Excuse me? Regardless of your opinions on gun control, what does this have to do with open-source development? Absolutely nothing.
Really, I don't get it. ESR's views on open-source/free software are completely pragmatic compared to that of many other open-source luminaries. He focuses on the less politically loaded and questionable aspects (ie. code reuse, peer review, external contributions, and so on).
You'd think that, even if he didn't agree with the specifics of ESR's claims about open-source, he wouldn't feel so compelled to clump ESR and other pragmatists in with RMS and his believers. We're far too diverse a group for that.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Of course we know how the consequences of imposing slavery as a false property right led to devistation, do we really want to experience similar consequences with newer and more modern technologies?
---
Are you seriously suggesting that the enslavement of human beings is in any way comparable to someone not letting you hack on their software?
I'm not sure what's more appalling - the fact that you believe that access to code you didn't produce is a moral right is anything like the abolishment of slavery, or the fact that someone somewhere moderated you up as Insightful...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Mike -
Thanks for the info. Have any 3rd parties (ie. Apple - I can't imagine Microsoft doing so) expressed interest in working on native UI widgets? I'd be very interested in seeing it happen.
Perhaps with Fizzila on OSX...?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I've read/heard all of this before, mostly in the Mozilla UI design newsgroup. I'm pretty familiar with the arguments.
:> In fact, the article you reference even links to a skin that originated from yours truly (since taken over by a very talented guy by the name of Pete). So yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with the technology behind Mozilla's skins/chrome.
However, when pressed, the main Mozilla folks will blame it on lack of funding for native user interfaces. I'm not sure how designing custom UI widgets is more cost effective than using native UIs, but if this is true then the blame goes to AOL for letting their lack of funding ruin the direction Mozilla's UI has gone.
If they don't want to fund it, don't. At least it won't sully the name of Mozilla with a usability nightmare of a user interface.
Besides, the whole "Web browser as a platform" story is a joke. Frankly, I'd much rather have a decent web browser first. As much as I respect the O'Reilly people, they sure picked the wrong thing to compare Mozilla to. Java apps are notorious for less than acceptable user interface design (yes, even w/Swing).
And no, I'm not talking out my ass.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Are you high?
---
Nope, although I've probably got enough caffeine in my system to kill a horse. I doubt that's making a difference, though.
---
To me platform consitency would mean it looking the SAME on most platforms.
---
Umm... Most people who use a given OS use it exclusively, or mostly so. Even if they don't, it's a good bet that they are intimately familiar with the widget set and capabilities of the operating system they use most of the time. Why should we diverge from accepted user interface standards? Should we return to the day when each application had its own user interface? I hope you're not seriously considering such a movement.
---
When I load mozilla on NT it pretty much (minus the window manager) looks the same. that is pretty friggen consistant.
---
But, it's not consistant with the rest of NT. It's certainly not consistant with the MacOS UI. If you install something that performs global changes on the UI (ie. Various themes, Kaleidoscope, etc) then those won't work either. At the very least, this is a pretty blatant duplication of code/effort. At its worst, it's externally inconsistant with the rest of the OS. Bad UI design.
---
Get your head straight and stop dissing a project you most likely know nothing about really.
---
Actually, I do know a bit about the project. I've even done some early work on one of the more popular skins that you can use with it. Check MozillaZine's ChromeZone if you'd like.
Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on something (or in this case, someone) you know nothing about?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I have a somewhat unique perspective on this, as I'm the main Abuse handler for Dreamhost - the web host for rinkworks.com. I mostly handle spam and the odd copyright violation...
:>
The way I see it, what he COULD do is provide an opt-out list of some sort for sites that don't wish to be Dialectized. So, if SomeBigCorp.com doesn't like their site being munged, they can specifically request removal. You don't need to take the whole thing down, just make it fair to all involved. I personally think most people wouldn't mind at all.
You could have a basic MySQL database with domains that have opted out, or a flat-file or something. If the URL being parsed is in the list, the person using the service gets a notice that due to complaint the process can't continue.
SpamCop does something like this as well, for ISPs that don't want spam reports from their service (kind of lame, but...).
I guess the big trick is making sure that the person opting out is legit, but that's mostly an implementation and policy detail.
Anyhow, I hope Mr. Stoddard finds a way around this. It's a pretty nifty site, I think.
<PLUG TYPE="shameless">
Oddly enough, when I first saw the original story I skipped over it. As a web host, I think it's pretty cool that we were prone to the dreaded Slashdot Effect and didn't even notice.
<PLUG>
BTW: these comments are my own, not that of my employer. etc. etc...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Why treat Microsoft differently than everyone else? (aside from the obvious)
---
Erm, because of the obvious...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
On another point: isn't it the OS's duty to create the anti-aliasing in fonts?
---
Yeah, but the Mozilla group doesn't appear to have any qualms overriding the OS when they feel like it (hence the lack of native widgets - so much for platform consistancy).
I guess they're trying to do the Anti-Microsoft. Instead of an OS swallowing up a web browser, damn near everything is going to be part of a browser. Next thing you know, they'll include a fully featured file browser and disk defragmenter in their next release...
<SARCASM>
But hey, at least it'll allow people to have polka-dotted CSS-compliant buttons and scrollbars! Forget good UI design, this is the kind of thing web developers need!
</SARCASM>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
:>
It also looks like Mac will be bringing Kerberos to OSX, in partnership with MIT.
---
Mac? Who is Mac?
By chance do you mean Apple?
No offense, but you PC guys always get that wrong. It's as bad as saying that a given OS was written by "Linux Torvalds".
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
The thing is, there's a certain critical mass. The MacOS can have 1/5th the amount of software that Windows has and remain viable. Many developers of the more important software are dual platform.
Be doesn't have that critical mass. They have a fraction of the MacOS marketshare, which is a fraction of Windows'. And even then, one only needs so many email clients and mp3 players.
Simply put, there are at least 1-2 of each kind of app type for the Mac, and usually several choices. BeOS, in contrast, usually doesn't have a given kind of app - or if they do, it's buggy as hell.
It's a matter of critical mass. Be doesn't have it, Apple does.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Sorry, some people don't equate the _privilege_ of using someone's source code to the _right_ of people to free speech, to be free from enslavement, etc.
People need to put things into perspective...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
RMS = "The code must be free! It's a matter of ethics and morality! What, were you for slavery too? Why, we have a RIGHT to FREE CODE!"
ESR = "Open-sourcing code is great, it has all sorts of benefits for users AND companies. Do it right, and it's a win/win situation."
One is a zealot, one is at least halfway practical. One alienates people, the other embraces them. One understands that people need to make money, the other believes everyone has a grant from a major university to live off of.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which is which.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
As another poster said, it's not quite that simple. IE5 for MacOS X is Carbon-based, which basically means that it is based on a rewritten set of traditional MacOS APIs (basically MacOS stripped of the stupid code that has held it back).
It technically runs on a Unix, but so do some Windows apps in Wine. About the same kind of thing, but it's an officially blessed API. You won't be seeing Apple release their APIs any time soon (I wouldn't blame them), and stuff would still need to be recompiled to X86 for most Unix/Linux people to make use of it.
Of course, it doesn't use stuff like X anyhow, so Microsoft would be in for quite a rewrite...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
I would point out, though, that the version of Disk Setup that comes with MacOS 9 includes an option for recommended LinuxPPC setup
---
Yep. Doesn't sound like the actions of A Great Evil Apple Conspiracy, does it? Sure, it probably took some guy a day to write support for that (if that), but it's still a nice token gesture. Apple's not going to subsidize the development of 3rd party operating systems - which is what I think Be expected - but they're not standing in anyone's way either.
---
For the record, I do subscribe to the view that, whatever Apple did or didn't do, Be was looking for an excuse to drop PowerPC support once they had committed to x86.
---
Right. If they had simply said that they were needing more cash and the PPC space wasn't providing, that would have made more sense. Now I wouldn't agree so much, but at the time the Mac market was pretty downbeat and nobody even knew if Apple would be making PPC-based machines in the future.
Be understood the PR hit they'd take was nothing compared to the new people they'd get from the "other" platform, so pissing off their PPC developers was an acceptable casualty.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Look harder. Everything Be needed is contained within the code for Darwin. Sure, they can't actually use the code, but they could certainly find out whatever boot parameters or 'secret stuff' they needed. Obviously the LinuxPPC people (as well as those in the lengthy list I mentioned) aren't having any trouble. In fact, they've received direct assistance from Apple as well.
Be needed an excuse to abandon their PPC userbase, and Apple was convenient. If they had simply said "Sorry, the volume in the Mac market just isn't enough" I wouldn't have blamed them. The foisting of blame on a 3rd party, though, is about as lame as you can get.
Apple obviously has no intent on blocking Be, and why should they? They'd sell boxes either way, including a copy of the MacOS. Much better than having Be leave their platform.
It's like pinning a murder on someone who has absolutely no motive, and basing your opinion on the words of someone who suddenly got a major cash infusion from a 3rd party (Intel). Apple had no reason to kill BeOS/PPC.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Well, maybe not. I think Rob would have come up with something else very similar for whatever his interest may have been.
Remember, he's got some interest in animation as well. The site could have been like that.
Of course, a geek is a geek. If he didn't get into Linux, he could very well have gotten into BSD or BeOS instead (even, god forbid, HURD). Slashdot has grown with the open-source community - if Linux weren't around it's possible that Slashdot would be smaller, but I bet something like it would still be here.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Agreed. If Microsoft owned Slashdot, how many people would come here?
My guess - within 7 days the entire population of Slashdot will have created new accounts on Rob's new project, and that'd be that.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Sometimes... Sometimes not.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Yep.
C:\docs\w2kinfo\buglist.txt
:>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Why following a "cathedral" development model when there are many folks out here willing and eager to help out with your code?
---
Because you can't pile a load of crap on someone's doorstep and expect them to suddenly start fixing everything. You need to give them something to work with.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)