Warp puts out some great stuff. Autechre is really good stuff, my favorite out of everything Warp puts out. Warp tends to put out "electronica" type stuff - if you're not into it, you wouldn't know.
There's millions of people out there that DO know these artists.. Warp is a big name.
If you were looking for Britney Spears or Puff Daddy in that list, you're looking at the wrong label. There's some really amazing music being made out there when you look past MTV and your "Alternative Rock" radio stations.
- Like you said, it's closed source and proprietary - Linux has a strong Unix tie; easier for developers to start writing for Linux right away - Linux and the Open Source/GPL movement wasn't around when Linux came to be. This is important, maybe the most important.
Maybe something like this could have taken off before all the Linux craze started, but it's kinda late IMO. While there's always the possibility that this OS could serve some function as an embedded OS or something of that nature, it's unlikely that it will ever reach "wide-spread" audience. Linux is still too new*, Microsoft still has a monopoly, etc.. and this software isn't free. Promises of free-ness and open-sourceness mean nothing.
If SkyOS keeps being developed for down the line, it'll probably end up including a compatibility layer to allow Linux/Unix applications to compile under it. Why not just run Linux, it's not just promised to be free, it is, today.
* When I say new, I mean, mature. Linux/FS/GPL software and desktop software is still emerging.
The developers don't have to accept code from contributers if they don't wish to. I don't like the idea of any system like this being closed source, pay to beta, "we intend to be open source, maybe."
I do believe Novell in these matters, I believe they are in the right about their position that SCO doesn't *own* the code, they simply own the right to license it. In this scenerio, only Novell itself could sue over it; something which does not seem very likely.
Probably the most damaging thing that could happen with this case, even when SCO loses, if a judge determines that 'like-code' is a deritive work. When I say 'like-code' I mean functions, basic ideas and principals.
I mean, it could really open up a can of worms that I don't want to see happen. We could start to see a lot of companies dig through GPL'd software in search of functions and code that resembled something that they may have done in the past, and trying to sue over it..
SCO is an example of why commercial software can end up very badly. Microsoft is another.
"I realize you're being funny, but does the 60 page document really have to spell out every single line of code? "
Apparently they do, or else readers like you would miss things, such as you have with the last 14 people which said the same thing. Pardon my negativity.
It doesn't make sense; doesn't IBM license from SCO the ability to use their IP in AIX anyways? What would giving SCO the source to AIX do for them in the case against Linux?
Looks like a mod went house and spent all his points to mod us as offtopic, although it is a lot more 'on topic' then a lot of the things I see around here.
Seriously, where do people think companies are going to make money? Everyone says "support contracts" but then when a company tries to sell them, people claim they are no better then Microsoft.
Why would Novell protect someone that does not purchase their support? I think it's a pretty good idea, good business practice, and throws this back in the face of SCO.
You can't compare what Novell is doing now versus what they did 15 years ago.
Way back when, when Novell was "king of the LAN," the computing world was a different place. Even Novell couldn't combat Microsoft and all their tactics.
Novell is a solid company, they've made solid products. I wouldn't brush them off quite yet; Linux and FS has given companies a new avenue to compete in the market once again.
I agree on all of your points, except the fact that Aqua raises any bars. It's personal preference, I think.
I think there's a lot about Aqua that I like. It looks nice in many parts, like the window shadows. It's very functional. Simple to navigate, all those good things. There's been a lot of years of UI design that's gone into it. A novice user can probably sit down at a Mac and learn to use basic functions quicker then on a Windows box. (side note: we're not novices forever...)
There's also a lot I don't like. I've never been a huge fan of MacOS in general, and usability wise Aqua ain't much different. The dancing bar at the top of the screen changing as you switch windows is frustrating to me, requiring you to switch to the application before accessing the menus. The overall look of Aqua is a little funny looking to me; I'm not too fond of the "stoplight" buttons and overall 'cartoonish' feel. And for goodness sakes, what does Apple have against mouse buttons?
I understand that once upon a time they wanted to keep things really simple, and it was one of the first consumer PC's with a mouse. Now a days, users are perfectly apt enough to use multiple buttons, and the scroll wheel. I don't think I could live without my scroll wheel. And don't even get me started on the iMac round mouse. Or even the new mice where you push down the whole mouse to click. (these might be good for the physically challenged, but I'm not.) Admittantly the mouse issue isn't an Aqua one, but it only runs on Macs and it's a Macintosh limitation.
Personal opinions about Aqua and Apple aside, it's easy to see that the goal of Apple's software is so you buy their hardware. Everything they put out is to this effect.
I think it's likely Linux on the Desktop is going to be recieving even more of a push this year then in the past, with all the recent things going on. As you mentioned, Novell seems to be pushing ahead rapidly with it's Desktop products, Sun seems to want to put Sun boxes on your desk, and IBM is one of the lead supporters in Linux in general. Not to mention the slew of other smaller companies striving for the same goal.
These companies want Microsoft out, and Linux is a very viable way to push. They can't buy it, nobody has exclusive control over it. It's an interesting time, indeed.
I think we all (at least here on slashdot) pretty much understand that even though our connection might be 3M/300K (as is my cablemodem) the connection to the "backbones" is going to be significantly less.
For me most part, I achieve my peek bandwidth at any time during the day. I have some really stupid problems on occation that I can do absolutely nothing about (like ICMP being blocked by two routers, none of the others.. I can ping *somtimes*)
The problem comes when your ISP decides that you're using too much of your bandwidth, and sticking it to you like you're a criminal. The ISP should recognize that they will have a certian percentage of heavy users, and a percentage of light users.
Any respectable ISP should have researched these trends and purchased bandwidth appropriately, or set the "caps" lower or even the prices higher.
While I'd certainly agree that most (being over 50%) people don't use skins and don't know what they are, there is a substantial number of people that do know and do use them.
The thing is, if everyone DID know that you could skin things, I'd wager that 'most' people would use different skins for all softs of things. I don't know of too many people that are aware of skinning abilities and don't do it.
I think KDE is really great. I enjoy my time with it.
I'll always be confused by some folks that say it's "bloat" or too busy. My KDE desktop is very simple and neat. I do think there's room for improvement, don't get me wrong. Consolidation of many tasks and configuration options, standardized menu's, etc. Overall it's very workable, fast, and stable for me. And it's pretty too.
If choice wasn't a good thing, how come "skins" are so wildly popular on anything that supports them?
You could make a damned clone of Microsoft's "calc" but with "skinning" abilities and it would instantly become all the rage, with people writing skins for it by the dozens.
People want a choice, although I do agree that it would be nice to have basic similarities. Fortunately, the two most popular desktop environments for Linux, Gnome and KDE, DO share many common GUI elements and are fairly easy to figure out, even for a layperson.
"OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?"
Linux is not trying to be anything. It's a "UNIX", not a backend for PlayschoolOS. (but it could be... up for a challange?) It is what it is, and it will become it's own desktop system once it reaches that level. IMO it's already there.. KDE is awesome, and only getting better every day. The beauty is that you don't have to run my choice of DE's, you could use Gnome, or whatever else, and still run the same applications.
The reason Linux keeps on getting bigger, better, marketshare and mindshare isn't because it's UNIX, or fun, or anything like that. It's because of one thing: the License.
Because of the GPL, Linux is able to be added to, developed for, tailored to, expanded, optimized, and changed in any way by anyone, to the benefit of everyone.
If OSX appeared for x86, it would still be a proprietary system and I seriously doubt that it would perform well on the market. It would be like trying to release a new version of OS/2; even if it kicked serious ass and ran all your windows applications too, the OS market has changed. It would fail if it's not GPL/equivelent.
I think the new apples are pretty neat and all, but even with all the added open source goodies and BSD-like core, it's still a highly proprietary system.
There will be absolutely no desire (for me) to run a Mac once Linux gets just a tad bit "bigger" on the desktop front, and run it on a nice 64-bit AMD box.
Of course, even if they did win on all counts, Linux would not meet it's end.
If there's any real "infringing" code, it'll be removed very quickly. It would be something of a PR hit, but it won't stop Linux nor OSS nor GNU or the GPL.
I'm pretty anxious to see what becomes of all this stuff!
Slashdot Mirror
Warp puts out some great stuff. Autechre is really good stuff, my favorite out of everything Warp puts out. Warp tends to put out "electronica" type stuff - if you're not into it, you wouldn't know.
There's millions of people out there that DO know these artists.. Warp is a big name.
If you were looking for Britney Spears or Puff Daddy in that list, you're looking at the wrong label. There's some really amazing music being made out there when you look past MTV and your "Alternative Rock" radio stations.
There's a few differences, actually.
- Like you said, it's closed source and proprietary
- Linux has a strong Unix tie; easier for developers to start writing for Linux right away
- Linux and the Open Source/GPL movement wasn't around when Linux came to be. This is important, maybe the most important.
Maybe something like this could have taken off before all the Linux craze started, but it's kinda late IMO. While there's always the possibility that this OS could serve some function as an embedded OS or something of that nature, it's unlikely that it will ever reach "wide-spread" audience. Linux is still too new*, Microsoft still has a monopoly, etc.. and this software isn't free. Promises of free-ness and open-sourceness mean nothing.
If SkyOS keeps being developed for down the line, it'll probably end up including a compatibility layer to allow Linux/Unix applications to compile under it. Why not just run Linux, it's not just promised to be free, it is, today.
* When I say new, I mean, mature. Linux/FS/GPL software and desktop software is still emerging.
Naa.
The developers don't have to accept code from contributers if they don't wish to. I don't like the idea of any system like this being closed source, pay to beta, "we intend to be open source, maybe."
I won't even download it.
I do believe Novell in these matters, I believe they are in the right about their position that SCO doesn't *own* the code, they simply own the right to license it. In this scenerio, only Novell itself could sue over it; something which does not seem very likely.
Probably the most damaging thing that could happen with this case, even when SCO loses, if a judge determines that 'like-code' is a deritive work. When I say 'like-code' I mean functions, basic ideas and principals.
I mean, it could really open up a can of worms that I don't want to see happen. We could start to see a lot of companies dig through GPL'd software in search of functions and code that resembled something that they may have done in the past, and trying to sue over it..
SCO is an example of why commercial software can end up very badly. Microsoft is another.
Yea, actually you're right =)
The neat thing about this case is that you don't need to be a lawyer to see how ridiculous the SCO suit is. Just common sense.
.. I would have probably worked through the holidays to get this information out to the judge, it being a very important peice and all..
Hell, I worked on Christmas day for the extra couple hundred bucks overtime.
These guys are morons.
"I realize you're being funny, but does the 60 page document really have to spell out every single line of code? "
Apparently they do, or else readers like you would miss things, such as you have with the last 14 people which said the same thing. Pardon my negativity.
Wouldn't it be funny if the outcome decided that Novell owned the copyrights after all, and then Novell went and sued IBM? haha
It doesn't make sense; doesn't IBM license from SCO the ability to use their IP in AIX anyways? What would giving SCO the source to AIX do for them in the case against Linux?
"Wake me when a cheap "build your own system" RISC alternative hits the market."
I fear you may never awake from your slumber.
Looks like a mod went house and spent all his points to mod us as offtopic, although it is a lot more 'on topic' then a lot of the things I see around here.
Oh well. Slashdot is silly like that.
I downloaded SuSE a few weeks ago.
Did they change something?
You're right man.
Seriously, where do people think companies are going to make money? Everyone says "support contracts" but then when a company tries to sell them, people claim they are no better then Microsoft.
Why would Novell protect someone that does not purchase their support? I think it's a pretty good idea, good business practice, and throws this back in the face of SCO.
You can't compare what Novell is doing now versus what they did 15 years ago.
Way back when, when Novell was "king of the LAN," the computing world was a different place. Even Novell couldn't combat Microsoft and all their tactics.
Novell is a solid company, they've made solid products. I wouldn't brush them off quite yet; Linux and FS has given companies a new avenue to compete in the market once again.
Phew. Thanks.
I agree on all of your points, except the fact that Aqua raises any bars. It's personal preference, I think.
I think there's a lot about Aqua that I like. It looks nice in many parts, like the window shadows. It's very functional. Simple to navigate, all those good things. There's been a lot of years of UI design that's gone into it. A novice user can probably sit down at a Mac and learn to use basic functions quicker then on a Windows box. (side note: we're not novices forever...)
There's also a lot I don't like. I've never been a huge fan of MacOS in general, and usability wise Aqua ain't much different. The dancing bar at the top of the screen changing as you switch windows is frustrating to me, requiring you to switch to the application before accessing the menus. The overall look of Aqua is a little funny looking to me; I'm not too fond of the "stoplight" buttons and overall 'cartoonish' feel. And for goodness sakes, what does Apple have against mouse buttons?
I understand that once upon a time they wanted to keep things really simple, and it was one of the first consumer PC's with a mouse. Now a days, users are perfectly apt enough to use multiple buttons, and the scroll wheel. I don't think I could live without my scroll wheel. And don't even get me started on the iMac round mouse. Or even the new mice where you push down the whole mouse to click. (these might be good for the physically challenged, but I'm not.) Admittantly the mouse issue isn't an Aqua one, but it only runs on Macs and it's a Macintosh limitation.
Personal opinions about Aqua and Apple aside, it's easy to see that the goal of Apple's software is so you buy their hardware. Everything they put out is to this effect.
I think it's likely Linux on the Desktop is going to be recieving even more of a push this year then in the past, with all the recent things going on. As you mentioned, Novell seems to be pushing ahead rapidly with it's Desktop products, Sun seems to want to put Sun boxes on your desk, and IBM is one of the lead supporters in Linux in general. Not to mention the slew of other smaller companies striving for the same goal.
These companies want Microsoft out, and Linux is a very viable way to push. They can't buy it, nobody has exclusive control over it. It's an interesting time, indeed.
You can take anything out of context or the wrong way. Like Bush doesn't fumble every single speach - "hispanicals."
Gore took a part in the commercialization of the Internet. Before it was commercialized, it wasn't anything that anyone used except schools and such.
Overselling isn't usually the problem.
I think we all (at least here on slashdot) pretty much understand that even though our connection might be 3M/300K (as is my cablemodem) the connection to the "backbones" is going to be significantly less.
For me most part, I achieve my peek bandwidth at any time during the day. I have some really stupid problems on occation that I can do absolutely nothing about (like ICMP being blocked by two routers, none of the others.. I can ping *somtimes*)
The problem comes when your ISP decides that you're using too much of your bandwidth, and sticking it to you like you're a criminal. The ISP should recognize that they will have a certian percentage of heavy users, and a percentage of light users.
Any respectable ISP should have researched these trends and purchased bandwidth appropriately, or set the "caps" lower or even the prices higher.
Most ISP's don't send these types of letters.
Troll? Jesus, the Mac users are a lot more vicious then the hardcore Linux folk I guess.
While I'd certainly agree that most (being over 50%) people don't use skins and don't know what they are, there is a substantial number of people that do know and do use them.
The thing is, if everyone DID know that you could skin things, I'd wager that 'most' people would use different skins for all softs of things. I don't know of too many people that are aware of skinning abilities and don't do it.
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.
I think KDE is really great. I enjoy my time with it.
I'll always be confused by some folks that say it's "bloat" or too busy. My KDE desktop is very simple and neat. I do think there's room for improvement, don't get me wrong. Consolidation of many tasks and configuration options, standardized menu's, etc. Overall it's very workable, fast, and stable for me. And it's pretty too.
If choice wasn't a good thing, how come "skins" are so wildly popular on anything that supports them?
You could make a damned clone of Microsoft's "calc" but with "skinning" abilities and it would instantly become all the rage, with people writing skins for it by the dozens.
People want a choice, although I do agree that it would be nice to have basic similarities. Fortunately, the two most popular desktop environments for Linux, Gnome and KDE, DO share many common GUI elements and are fairly easy to figure out, even for a layperson.
You've said what I was going to say if nobody else did!
That's got to be one of the most ridiculous explinations of Microsoft's monopoly to date.
Not to say that UI uniformity isn't a good thing, but it's an afterthought for Microsoft to have done so.
"OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?"
Linux is not trying to be anything. It's a "UNIX", not a backend for PlayschoolOS. (but it could be... up for a challange?) It is what it is, and it will become it's own desktop system once it reaches that level. IMO it's already there.. KDE is awesome, and only getting better every day. The beauty is that you don't have to run my choice of DE's, you could use Gnome, or whatever else, and still run the same applications.
The reason Linux keeps on getting bigger, better, marketshare and mindshare isn't because it's UNIX, or fun, or anything like that. It's because of one thing: the License.
Because of the GPL, Linux is able to be added to, developed for, tailored to, expanded, optimized, and changed in any way by anyone, to the benefit of everyone.
If OSX appeared for x86, it would still be a proprietary system and I seriously doubt that it would perform well on the market. It would be like trying to release a new version of OS/2; even if it kicked serious ass and ran all your windows applications too, the OS market has changed. It would fail if it's not GPL/equivelent.
That's my opinion anyways.
It ain't no saint either.
I think the new apples are pretty neat and all, but even with all the added open source goodies and BSD-like core, it's still a highly proprietary system.
There will be absolutely no desire (for me) to run a Mac once Linux gets just a tad bit "bigger" on the desktop front, and run it on a nice 64-bit AMD box.
Of course, even if they did win on all counts, Linux would not meet it's end.
If there's any real "infringing" code, it'll be removed very quickly. It would be something of a PR hit, but it won't stop Linux nor OSS nor GNU or the GPL.
I'm pretty anxious to see what becomes of all this stuff!