The first argument was that Apple didn't want to lower sales of MacOS, but that didn't hold water. Apple sells boxes anyhow (running MacOS or Linux), and that's where they make their money.
Then, people said Apple had a past of proprietary hardware and software. More or less true, but then Darwin joined MkLinux and LinuxPPC on the platform. Oddly enough, a certain Jean-Louis Gassee happened to be the main proponent of closed systems at his time at Apple. When he left, Macs started becoming more expandable and began using more standard hardware.
This isn't even mentioning a certain investment by Intel in Be. Did that have anything to do with their current policy regarding PPC? Maybe not. Either way, Be has handled it TERRIBLY. If they didn't find enough marketshare in the PowerPC space, they should have come outright and said so, instead of blaming Apple or letting Be/PPC customers wonder if they would be supported or not.
...of course, now Be is abandoning their desktop market entirely (except as a development platform for their IAs), and the cycle continues, leaving even more desktop users in the cold. Oops.
(note: Be's software is superb, and their coders are anything but incompetant. This is an internal politics issue, not a technical one. I wager they could have BeOS running on a G3/G4 within 2 weeks maximum)
Perhaps Be should have paid for Apple's developer time to help them get things running? When Apple has spent the last 3 years gutting their _own_ department, what makes you think they should support Be?
Of course, a certain investment by Intel wouldn't have anything to do with Be's current focus, even while Apple is opening stuff up (*cough* Darwin) themselves.
No, just information. Marketting would have come up with a better looking page. Admit it.
1. If Apple was so worried about Linux, they'd pretend it doesn't exist. As it is, they've embracing the inevitable, to their potential advantage. Why is this wrong? This is the way a company is supposed to work. If it doesn't hurt anyone, big deal.
2. Apple gains from people buying Macs to run LinuxPPC - the only loss is in OS upgrades and maybe market for 3rd party Mac software. Apple would surely prefer that you bought a Mac for Linux than no Mac at all.
Were the LinuxPPC people going to pay Apple for the time?
Apple may not actively help, but that doesn't mean they're stopping anyone. Apple has more important things to spend its time and money on. Engineer time isn't free, after all.
Don't procede to tell me if Slashdot is my cup of tea. You could multiple my user ID (5387) 12 times and still be under yours (63515), so I think I know a think or two about the people and content here.
How many posts from me have you seen to make these all encompassing statements? Are you basing this on my being a Mac user and a couple of posts, or have you been stalking me for the last few months?
...
First, the Mac has become LESS closed in recent years than it has been in the past (minus the lack of cloning, which I don't care for, but understand the business reasons of). They've opened as much of their OS up as they can without putting themselves out of business, current Macs (with the exception of the consumer line) are fairly expandable, and so on. As for Firewire, given that they spent a lot of cash to develop it, what's the problem there? A quarter isn't exactly a lot to ask, is it?
Second, this is 'News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters' - NOT 'News About Linux, All Other Opinions Worthless'. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't tow the Linux-user political line doesn't belong here? That sounds like conformity my friend, the same trait that many Mac and Linux users have traditionally railed against.
Your posting history shows that you're not an idiot, despite those opinions we don't share and a general disdain for computer aesthetics and usability. However, you really should open your mind up a little bit and reconsider your stereotype of Mac users. Quite often, they don't fit. Even worse, they smack of elitism.
[Note: This is coming from someone who can be found booting into BeOS, LinuxPPC, and MacOS 9 on any given day - with OSX being added to the list when the time comes. Try expanding your horizons, life is much better that way]
--- hehe, "checked out their stock latey?". Like that has anything to do with anything. ---
Sure it does. The clearly inflammatory statement was "It sounds like Apple is not quite giving up yet, although it probably should be", which seems to mean that they should just give up. Their stock price would indicate that they're not even close to going out of business - no need to give up.
Any time a vaguely Mac-related story is posted, you get these clowns making stupid comments and stereotypes about people they don't even know. If you have a legit gripe with Apple and/or the Mac:
1. Make sure it's on topic. 2. Make sure it's informed.
Since when is their latest product the iMac? I think you need to keep up on the press releases.
--- Why then go and attempt to build a high-performance machine? ---
Why not? There are a lot of things posted to Slashdot that don't make for the most sensible possibilities. Remember, there are people that come here to learn about lego guns and spend time cooling their systems in beer for the humor value.
That said, an easy to use system of this kind might be of interest. Losing a few percentage points in the speed department (which I agree with you, is likely with the current MacOS) could very well be made up for by the ease of administration and setup. That is, if you want to move this kind of technology out of universities and into the Real World.
Setting this up is as easy as 1, 2, 3 apparently (despite, well, paying for everything). After a 3 step process, they put a little note at the bottom:
"Note: To build a Beowulf, a Linux-based cluster, we think the following 230-page book is an excellent introduction: T. L. Sterling, J. Salmon, D. J. Becker, and D. F. Savarese, How to Build a Beowulf, [MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999]."
--- Also, the Aqua GUI really really sucks. All eye-candy with lesser and lesser functionality in the trends of QT 4. ---
Weird. You've received DP3 already? Or are you basing this off of a few screenshots of an alpha of OSX?
If you'll notice, some of the more annoying features in QT4 seem to have been fixed in the QuickTime player for MacOS X.
The current DVD player is just that, current. I personally don't think it's that bad (not compared to QT4 Player at least).
As for red/yellow/green, that could very well be customizable. I don't know, and neither do you. It's far too early to be making such firm statements for or against Aqua.
Re:It's logical to go to space
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
I stand corrected!
Still, this kind of underlines the need for a clear strategy for space travel, with little red tape. I have a feeling if a commercial entity or gongomerate were to be controlling things, more effort would be made to make things efficient.
Re:Space travel won't solve overpopulation.
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
I'll look around.
On the other hand, I think your premise is flawed some what. Obviously space exploration isn't the only thing we should be working on (birth control in particular makes sense to me), but it doesn't need to be the only thing.
Also, if we can get a significant portion of the population up, their children will be born in space - not on earth - to begin with.
I'm looking at this from the point of view that it may take 1000 years to truly accomplish, but I don't think 'never' is a very good answer. It could very well begin with a little tourism, resource hunting, etc (and really, overpopulation is an issue of resources, not so much filling up space).
Re:I can't believe this
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
I know this will sound harsh, but please take the time to read it.
If these starving people would quit having fucking kids, this problem would more or less go away within 100 years or so. If you can't afford to feed yourself, you have no business having children so that they can starve as well.
If we keep 'feeding the world', the world will continue overpopulating itself into extinction. How about the alternative? Instead of focusing on the numbers, focus on the quality of life. Throwing money at third world countries is just covering up the problem, it just trains people to accept handouts.
Instead, why don't we improve our technologies in such a way that they are shared with the world? Promote things like birth control (telling the catholic church to piss off, if you must), show better ways to make use of land, etc. People are responsible for their own station in life, and simply giving them everything doesn't do a damn thing to teach them that.
A good space program could, eventually, bring great technological advancements to the world. Even in the limited 15 or so years we were serious about space, many things came about. Look at the computer on your desk - do you realize that its ancestors played a large part in the space program (and were often developed for that very purpose)? How about 'space age' materials, which can be used in creating cheaper shelter for the homeless? How about improvements in military tech (perhaps keeping you out of shackles)?
And what about Tang?
In the end, we could colonize and terraform other planets, providing room for the world to expand - which it's going to do whether we like it or not given enough time. Do you want everyone to have a decent quality of life, or would you rather everyone be forced to live happily sleeping in cubes, reading labels from cans of bean curd (struggling with a flashlight, no doubt due to the amount of smog in the atmosphere blocking out the sun)?
Re:It's logical to go to space
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
Indeed. You know what's even worse? These idiots who think computer technology will be cost efficient enough to sit on your desk - or even fit on your desk, for that matter. Hell, the market for computers can't be over what - 5 or 6 total?
...
Yes, I understand that computer technology seems to advance much faster, for what reason I don't know. But things have changed since the original moon landings. First, they were 'one shot' trips - now we have the shuttle, which can be reused (and as such costs less). If someone develops a decent shuttle-like transport without some of its drawbacks, we'll be another step closer. It'll be somewhat slow, but I'm confident that we'll at the very least begin colonizing the moon before I'm dead (note: I'm 21).
We're already building an international space station. Considering that half the cost is in getting into orbit in the first place, once we're there things become far cheaper (you can take off and land without having to overcome that pesky gravity).
Re:Out of the Real World
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 2
And you think overpopulation has no impact on said starving people? The sooner we colonize unused planets, the sooner this population can be diverted elsewhere.
If you haven't noticed, we're vastly overpopulated as it is. Lowering the growth rate via starvation and/or birth control does much more for our long-term viability than does feeding the hungry while they continue to screw like rabbits.
Colonization of otherwise unused planets makes more sense to me - keep up with peoples' breeding habits, and yet maintain a halfway decent standard of living. What's the point of not starving to death if it means eating bean curry in a 6'x 3'x 3' 'cube'?
Apple wanted Be to pay to develop on the hardware? I'm kind of curious where you heard that.
I could see why Apple may have wanted some cash to help Be out. Engineer time isn't free, after all, and there's no telling how much Be needed/wanted.
In the end though, I think it came down to marketshare. I can't blame Be for that, although it may not have been the smartest move (Macs are very common in Be's target market - err, old target market). In the end, they were seduced by the large raw marketshare of the Intel market.
I think it may have hurt them though - their move to IA's may have been due to the inability to keep up with driver development on the PC platform.
What I *am* pissed about is Be's wishy-washy attitude about it. When they first added X86 support, they were saying that they were dual platform, that it was one of their core stengths, etc. Since then they have kept the PPC version very stagnant, and haven't evangelized it at all. I just wish they'd get around to officially dropping support and the charade that goes along with it.
QuickTime is far more than a movie player. It supports a large number of different file formats, plus different effects (fading, zooming, zooms, cut scenes, etc). It also includes support for 3D models, Apple's VR technology (with hotspots), sprites, streaming, etc.
While most people just use it for movie playback, that's not its only use.
Reread the statement. It doesn't say that Apple emulated it right off (you're right - Windows was unleashed later). I think what he means is the 'Platinum' appearance that came along with MacOS 8, which is definately more 'gray' than the old System 7 version. The menubar turned gray as well.
I don't necessarily think that the Mac version is really 'ponderously-heavy 3d chrome', though. There is a lot less gray, fewer bevels, etc. You have to admit that they both moved in that same general direction.
Re: #1, blame Be. LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog Linux, etc. didn't have much trouble. If Apple is so afraid of the competition, they'd have never released Darwin. They probably wouldn't have moved to ROM in RAM either.
Be has its own reasons for switching to Intel, and shifted the blame elsewhere for their own convenience. If they were expecting free R&D from Apple they should have expected otherwise. Not to mention their investment by Intel - Be's recent (ie. within this month) announcements seem to indicate that they are at the mercy of their shareholders.
Seriously though, why would Apple care? BeOS running on Apple hardware doesn't lose them any money. You're assuming a murder when there wasn't even a motive.
Re: #2, current share prices, increasing marketshare, and sales numbers indicate otherwise.
Re: #3, it's subjective. Nobody in the public has even used it, anyhow.
Re: #4, hard to say. Refer to #3.
...if you want to point out mistakes, try not carefully introducing cloning in '88 or '89 (you can blame Jean-Louis Gasee of Be for that one). How about Copland? How about over-pricing?
According to the keynote, the old view styles will be present. You're not limited to a NeXT-style Miller column, and you can have multiple windows open at any given time.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't get an answer, because you're right.
The first argument was that Apple didn't want to lower sales of MacOS, but that didn't hold water. Apple sells boxes anyhow (running MacOS or Linux), and that's where they make their money.
Then, people said Apple had a past of proprietary hardware and software. More or less true, but then Darwin joined MkLinux and LinuxPPC on the platform. Oddly enough, a certain Jean-Louis Gassee happened to be the main proponent of closed systems at his time at Apple. When he left, Macs started becoming more expandable and began using more standard hardware.
This isn't even mentioning a certain investment by Intel in Be. Did that have anything to do with their current policy regarding PPC? Maybe not. Either way, Be has handled it TERRIBLY. If they didn't find enough marketshare in the PowerPC space, they should have come outright and said so, instead of blaming Apple or letting Be/PPC customers wonder if they would be supported or not.
...of course, now Be is abandoning their desktop market entirely (except as a development platform for their IAs), and the cycle continues, leaving even more desktop users in the cold. Oops.
(note: Be's software is superb, and their coders are anything but incompetant. This is an internal politics issue, not a technical one. I wager they could have BeOS running on a G3/G4 within 2 weeks maximum)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Perhaps Be should have paid for Apple's developer time to help them get things running? When Apple has spent the last 3 years gutting their _own_ department, what makes you think they should support Be?
Of course, a certain investment by Intel wouldn't have anything to do with Be's current focus, even while Apple is opening stuff up (*cough* Darwin) themselves.
Sorry man, Be's argument doesn't wash. Nice OS, but...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
The moment you 'ban' any symbol, you may as well be burning books alongside those Nazis you reference.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
No, just information. Marketting would have come up with a better looking page. Admit it.
1. If Apple was so worried about Linux, they'd pretend it doesn't exist. As it is, they've embracing the inevitable, to their potential advantage. Why is this wrong? This is the way a company is supposed to work. If it doesn't hurt anyone, big deal.
2. Apple gains from people buying Macs to run LinuxPPC - the only loss is in OS upgrades and maybe market for 3rd party Mac software. Apple would surely prefer that you bought a Mac for Linux than no Mac at all.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
And count. He says '3 reasons', but lists 4. :>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Were the LinuxPPC people going to pay Apple for the time?
Apple may not actively help, but that doesn't mean they're stopping anyone. Apple has more important things to spend its time and money on. Engineer time isn't free, after all.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
[quote]
You could multiple my user ID (5387) 12 times and still be under yours (63515)
[/quote]
...and yet you could probably spell and multiply better than I. *sigh*
'multiple' = 'multiply'
'12' = '11'
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Don't procede to tell me if Slashdot is my cup of tea. You could multiple my user ID (5387) 12 times and still be under yours (63515), so I think I know a think or two about the people and content here.
How many posts from me have you seen to make these all encompassing statements? Are you basing this on my being a Mac user and a couple of posts, or have you been stalking me for the last few months?
...
First, the Mac has become LESS closed in recent years than it has been in the past (minus the lack of cloning, which I don't care for, but understand the business reasons of). They've opened as much of their OS up as they can without putting themselves out of business, current Macs (with the exception of the consumer line) are fairly expandable, and so on. As for Firewire, given that they spent a lot of cash to develop it, what's the problem there? A quarter isn't exactly a lot to ask, is it?
Second, this is 'News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters' - NOT 'News About Linux, All Other Opinions Worthless'. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't tow the Linux-user political line doesn't belong here? That sounds like conformity my friend, the same trait that many Mac and Linux users have traditionally railed against.
Your posting history shows that you're not an idiot, despite those opinions we don't share and a general disdain for computer aesthetics and usability. However, you really should open your mind up a little bit and reconsider your stereotype of Mac users. Quite often, they don't fit. Even worse, they smack of elitism.
[Note: This is coming from someone who can be found booting into BeOS, LinuxPPC, and MacOS 9 on any given day - with OSX being added to the list when the time comes. Try expanding your horizons, life is much better that way]
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
hehe, "checked out their stock latey?". Like that has anything to do with anything.
---
Sure it does. The clearly inflammatory statement was "It sounds like Apple is not quite giving up yet, although it probably should be", which seems to mean that they should just give up. Their stock price would indicate that they're not even close to going out of business - no need to give up.
Any time a vaguely Mac-related story is posted, you get these clowns making stupid comments and stereotypes about people they don't even know. If you have a legit gripe with Apple and/or the Mac:
1. Make sure it's on topic.
2. Make sure it's informed.
Usually you find little of either.
BTW: Your jokes are really funny. Hah hah.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Their latest product is the iMac.
---
Since when is their latest product the iMac? I think you need to keep up on the press releases.
---
Why then go and attempt to build a high-performance machine?
---
Why not? There are a lot of things posted to Slashdot that don't make for the most sensible possibilities. Remember, there are people that come here to learn about lego guns and spend time cooling their systems in beer for the humor value.
That said, an easy to use system of this kind might be of interest. Losing a few percentage points in the speed department (which I agree with you, is likely with the current MacOS) could very well be made up for by the ease of administration and setup. That is, if you want to move this kind of technology out of universities and into the Real World.
---
No flamewar, please.
---
None intended.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Processing the burnt, charred remains of obnoxious anonymous cowards and trolls such as yourself. Take your Mac-bashing elsewhere.
Giving up, indeed. Have you checked Apple's stock price lately?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
There's a somewhat humorous portion to the instructions, although I'm not sure it was intended. Check them out:
.ucla.edu/appleseed/appleseedrecipe.html
:>
http://exodus.physics
Setting this up is as easy as 1, 2, 3 apparently (despite, well, paying for everything). After a 3 step process, they put a little note at the bottom:
"Note: To build a Beowulf, a Linux-based cluster, we think the following 230-page book is an excellent introduction: T. L. Sterling, J. Salmon, D. J. Becker, and D. F. Savarese, How to Build a Beowulf, [MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999]."
A 230 page introduction?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
This coming from a guy who doesn't supply an email address? ;>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
---
Also, the Aqua GUI really really sucks. All eye-candy with lesser and lesser functionality in the trends of QT 4.
---
Weird. You've received DP3 already? Or are you basing this off of a few screenshots of an alpha of OSX?
If you'll notice, some of the more annoying features in QT4 seem to have been fixed in the QuickTime player for MacOS X.
The current DVD player is just that, current. I personally don't think it's that bad (not compared to QT4 Player at least).
As for red/yellow/green, that could very well be customizable. I don't know, and neither do you. It's far too early to be making such firm statements for or against Aqua.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I stand corrected!
Still, this kind of underlines the need for a clear strategy for space travel, with little red tape. I have a feeling if a commercial entity or gongomerate were to be controlling things, more effort would be made to make things efficient.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I'll look around.
On the other hand, I think your premise is flawed some what. Obviously space exploration isn't the only thing we should be working on (birth control in particular makes sense to me), but it doesn't need to be the only thing.
Also, if we can get a significant portion of the population up, their children will be born in space - not on earth - to begin with.
I'm looking at this from the point of view that it may take 1000 years to truly accomplish, but I don't think 'never' is a very good answer. It could very well begin with a little tourism, resource hunting, etc (and really, overpopulation is an issue of resources, not so much filling up space).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
I know this will sound harsh, but please take the time to read it.
If these starving people would quit having fucking kids, this problem would more or less go away within 100 years or so. If you can't afford to feed yourself, you have no business having children so that they can starve as well.
If we keep 'feeding the world', the world will continue overpopulating itself into extinction. How about the alternative? Instead of focusing on the numbers, focus on the quality of life. Throwing money at third world countries is just covering up the problem, it just trains people to accept handouts.
Instead, why don't we improve our technologies in such a way that they are shared with the world? Promote things like birth control (telling the catholic church to piss off, if you must), show better ways to make use of land, etc. People are responsible for their own station in life, and simply giving them everything doesn't do a damn thing to teach them that.
A good space program could, eventually, bring great technological advancements to the world. Even in the limited 15 or so years we were serious about space, many things came about. Look at the computer on your desk - do you realize that its ancestors played a large part in the space program (and were often developed for that very purpose)? How about 'space age' materials, which can be used in creating cheaper shelter for the homeless? How about improvements in military tech (perhaps keeping you out of shackles)?
And what about Tang?
In the end, we could colonize and terraform other planets, providing room for the world to expand - which it's going to do whether we like it or not given enough time. Do you want everyone to have a decent quality of life, or would you rather everyone be forced to live happily sleeping in cubes, reading labels from cans of bean curd (struggling with a flashlight, no doubt due to the amount of smog in the atmosphere blocking out the sun)?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Indeed. You know what's even worse? These idiots who think computer technology will be cost efficient enough to sit on your desk - or even fit on your desk, for that matter. Hell, the market for computers can't be over what - 5 or 6 total?
...
Yes, I understand that computer technology seems to advance much faster, for what reason I don't know. But things have changed since the original moon landings. First, they were 'one shot' trips - now we have the shuttle, which can be reused (and as such costs less). If someone develops a decent shuttle-like transport without some of its drawbacks, we'll be another step closer. It'll be somewhat slow, but I'm confident that we'll at the very least begin colonizing the moon before I'm dead (note: I'm 21).
We're already building an international space station. Considering that half the cost is in getting into orbit in the first place, once we're there things become far cheaper (you can take off and land without having to overcome that pesky gravity).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
And you think overpopulation has no impact on said starving people? The sooner we colonize unused planets, the sooner this population can be diverted elsewhere.
If you haven't noticed, we're vastly overpopulated as it is. Lowering the growth rate via starvation and/or birth control does much more for our long-term viability than does feeding the hungry while they continue to screw like rabbits.
Colonization of otherwise unused planets makes more sense to me - keep up with peoples' breeding habits, and yet maintain a halfway decent standard of living. What's the point of not starving to death if it means eating bean curry in a 6'x 3'x 3' 'cube'?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Apple wanted Be to pay to develop on the hardware? I'm kind of curious where you heard that.
I could see why Apple may have wanted some cash to help Be out. Engineer time isn't free, after all, and there's no telling how much Be needed/wanted.
In the end though, I think it came down to marketshare. I can't blame Be for that, although it may not have been the smartest move (Macs are very common in Be's target market - err, old target market). In the end, they were seduced by the large raw marketshare of the Intel market.
I think it may have hurt them though - their move to IA's may have been due to the inability to keep up with driver development on the PC platform.
What I *am* pissed about is Be's wishy-washy attitude about it. When they first added X86 support, they were saying that they were dual platform, that it was one of their core stengths, etc. Since then they have kept the PPC version very stagnant, and haven't evangelized it at all. I just wish they'd get around to officially dropping support and the charade that goes along with it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
QuickTime is far more than a movie player. It supports a large number of different file formats, plus different effects (fading, zooming, zooms, cut scenes, etc). It also includes support for 3D models, Apple's VR technology (with hotspots), sprites, streaming, etc.
While most people just use it for movie playback, that's not its only use.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Well, if I remember correctly. QuickTime first came out in the very late 80's or early 90's (probably early 90's - maybe '91 or so).
My guess is that Apple had it first. I don't think they care though, as they usually don't refer to it as 'QT' (people do).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Reread the statement. It doesn't say that Apple emulated it right off (you're right - Windows was unleashed later). I think what he means is the 'Platinum' appearance that came along with MacOS 8, which is definately more 'gray' than the old System 7 version. The menubar turned gray as well.
I don't necessarily think that the Mac version is really 'ponderously-heavy 3d chrome', though. There is a lot less gray, fewer bevels, etc. You have to admit that they both moved in that same general direction.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
Re: #1, blame Be. LinuxPPC, Yellow Dog Linux, etc. didn't have much trouble. If Apple is so afraid of the competition, they'd have never released Darwin. They probably wouldn't have moved to ROM in RAM either.
Be has its own reasons for switching to Intel, and shifted the blame elsewhere for their own convenience. If they were expecting free R&D from Apple they should have expected otherwise. Not to mention their investment by Intel - Be's recent (ie. within this month) announcements seem to indicate that they are at the mercy of their shareholders.
Seriously though, why would Apple care? BeOS running on Apple hardware doesn't lose them any money. You're assuming a murder when there wasn't even a motive.
Re: #2, current share prices, increasing marketshare, and sales numbers indicate otherwise.
Re: #3, it's subjective. Nobody in the public has even used it, anyhow.
Re: #4, hard to say. Refer to #3.
...if you want to point out mistakes, try not carefully introducing cloning in '88 or '89 (you can blame Jean-Louis Gasee of Be for that one). How about Copland? How about over-pricing?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
According to the keynote, the old view styles will be present. You're not limited to a NeXT-style Miller column, and you can have multiple windows open at any given time.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)