Haven't they got enough problems, having shipped the iPod, which the RIAA would readily like to outlaw?
To be fair, Apple's not taking any more of a risk than say, Sony, or any of the other 200 or so makers of portable MP3 players. People think they're "striking a blow for freedom", or "taking a stand", but really they just saw a good market and went for it. The true test of their moral beliefs and strength is how long they can last when the RIAA bribes the government to heat things up. Hopefully, Apple won't crumble under the RIAA like I'm sure many of the other MP3 player manufacturers are doing at this very minute, busily adding in DRM and restrictions on desired functionality.
Why is slashdot turning into an Apple cheerleading site?
Turning into? I think you're a bit behind the times, friend. Slashdot's been a hardcore Apple Corporation cheerleading site since OSX Public Beta. Look at the people who get modded up to "+5, Informative" for saying "My PowerBook gets 10 hours of battery life" while the people who say "Funny, mine only gets 2.5" get modded down... The rule is, if you say what we want to hear, you'll get modded up. If you challenge our preconceived ideas, you go down in flames.
But really, this zealotry hurts Apple - once people switch and find out that much of what was boasted about OSX, Apple hardware, and the loving paternal attitudes of Apple Corporate are not what they were cracked up to be, you have a bunch of disappointed new users upset at losing $3000 for believing the little white lies of a massive propaganda effort. My friend at Apple calls the customers the "unpaid, distributed sales force". That's good, if they truly believe in the product and the company, but there are so many flaming zealots here who have lost all sense of reason or balance that Slashdot sometimes reeks of deception and unrealistic bullsh*t. Giving potential users false hopes about Apple hurts everyone. They're strong enough to stand on the truth, they don't need us pimping their wares for them with lies and hype.
And what's worse, all the zealots give Apple the message that they don't have to improve themselves, because we'll buy whatever they're selling and like it under any circumstances! We need to be tougher on them if we want them to improve. Saying "don't worry, you're doing just fine" doesn't really spur them on. Every time they screw up, a small vocal bunch of zealots spark up their computers and attack any criticism of Apple rabidly. If they screw up, they should be taken to task for it, not defended by the "Mac Pack"! By defending their actions, you give them the message that what they did was okay. They will do the same thing again. Think about how you want Apple to be. When they break that mould, if you have to post, try to influence them to be better, not worse. Right now, they're not accountable because you didn't fulfil your duty as a loyal customer, to remain loyal only as long as their behavior and product quality warrants it.
I confess, I'm saying this because I love Apple and want them to be the greatest computer company in the world. Mac users should be harder on them than everyone else; we have more at stake. But I find people glossing over Apple's failures in an attempt to justify their decision to switch. Honesty is the best policy, not furthering your Apple marketshare improvement agenda.
By the way, you spoke out against Apple, you will now be modded "flamebait" and/or "troll".
Sounds like you need a format. Fixed my brother's Win98 Inspiron battery life instantly, and everything sped up dramatically. Not that I'd ever advocate Windows over a Mac, but if you're trapped in Windows hell, that's how to get out (load the new RedHat after formatting if you want to stay out).
The fact remains: MacOS X is everything linux dreams of being.
Actually, OSX is everything *BSD* dreams of being. GNU/Linux dreams about being free. The tech is secondary to the freedom aspect. In BSD, the tech is first, and freedom is largely irrelevant, since they don't care whether their code is proprietized, as was done by Apple for OSX, and by Microsoft in many places for 2000 and XP especially. OSX is great, but it's got a different focus. The true comparison is with the BSD's.
Doc Searls of Linux Journal is on a TiBook and OSX. O'Reilly pimps OSX more than anything else these days. Some of the guys at Slashdot are on Macs. Even the new KDE stuff yesterday, if you look at the screenshots, showed OSX Jaguar newsgroups open in the background. And if that's not enough, read some Slashdot posts. The number of switchers from linux is huge, probably more than from Windows, because Windows people have no reason to switch except that they hate MS. Linux people often NEED an easy to use system with a good unified GUI and corporate level apps... That's OSX.
The question is not whether Linux is being sucked dry by Apple, it's whether Apple and MS got together and agreed that quality Free Software was the greatest enemy of their fat margins and tight control and concocted a plan to wipe it out by stripping the dev community naked with OSX.
[/conspiracy theory]
Yes, it's wishful thinking. It's extremely unlikely that Apple will ever open any code that doesn't legally have to be opened, unless it's to further the use of a new standard they have created.
But as a user who likes to improve stuff, it's on my wishlist anyway. I run into situations where the code would be helpful DAILY. It's great for security, bugfixing, and optimization. I personally would have patched half the stupid little bugs and limitations in OSX *myself* if the source was open. As it is now, we wait for large official updates which may or may not fix our problems. And we PAY for many of the updates. You want double the Jaguar speed for free? Give me the code. There's a lot of itches that need to be scratched in OSX, and a whole lot of developers migrating over from linux and unix who love to code for fun. You do the math. The trickledown of code fixes would benefit *every single user* of OSX.
But for Apple to surrender control in order to gain my customer satisfaction? Nope. I honestly believe Microsoft will do it first, and Apple may or may not follow. They're more stubborn and proprietary than MS (but not quite as evil). But it makes a lot more sense for Apple to do it, since they make most of their money off their hardware, and larger apps like FinalCut Pro that aren't part of the OS. Yes, the OS draws in new users, but it's the hardware I'm primarily paying my $3000 for, and the improvements we users would make to the OS would improve the value of the total package. Think about how many Slashdotters have switched because of Fink. Without Fink providing access to open-source goodies, there'd be a lot less sales of OSX. If Apple realized what they've got and opened the floodgates to us coders, there'd be a lot more sales and OSX would be much better system. And we could be the scapegoats when the DRM guys come calling! Giving the users extra functionality can't hurt Apple beyond what they'd gain in free labor and goodwill. But they'd lose the ability to force the dock on us and dictate how our systems should look and behave. And judging from Apple's history, they're more interested in controlling the system than improving it. The "you-can't-use-our-iDVD-software-with-a-third-part y-DVD" thing comes to mind.
Open-source and free software coders want to "Think Different", but they need the code to make it happen.
What he's saying is that MS can LEGALLY take the Linux kernel, fork it (keeping it GPLed), gradually make it totally incompatible with the original linux kernel (embrace and extend), and steal developers to the new MS-controlled kernel that has, like OSX, a fully proprietary and secret GUI on top of the kernel. It will run all Linux apps, it will run all Windows apps, it will have corporate support, it will not crash as much. And even though the kernel is fully open, the apps will be written for and tied to the secret GUI layer, thus making porting nearly impossible.
This is exactly what Apple is doing to linux and BSD right now with OSX. OSX is stealing the hordes of linux and unix developers who were only "into" linux because it was technologically cool, not because it was free. If *any* part of the system is proprietary, they've got you locked in, whether you admit it or not.
By hacking the box and running Linux on it, you are completely removing their profit potential for that unit. Effectively, they just paid you to have a new Linux box in your living room.
It's not my fault they sell at a loss. I don't see anyone congratulating the bankrupt dotcom companies for their great business plans. Microsoft's willing to lose money in exchange for marketshare? Fine. I'll buy one and run Linux on it. They're not gonna go under if I don't buy an $80 game. And I don't see any EULA or contract FORCING me to buy games, so this loss-leader crap is their problem, not mine. I'm not going to subsidize their stupidity or buy games out of pity. I feel free to run Linux on it or not buy any xbox games whatsoever without guilt.
But when Microsoft calls Gnu/Linux a "CANCER", that's professional. Riiiight.
Some people understand the meaning and value of a man's words without judging his delivery or appearance. I do. I'm not even judging you for being an Anonymous Coward. I'm judging your content.
Slashdotters don't hate Microsoft or anyone else more than they themselves are hated by these groups.
Judging first by the shallow things, and second by content, breaks communication. I shouldn't be talking to you, you're probably just another scrawny four-eyed pimply Arabic communist free software terrorist geek who's never gotten laid. Oh, sorry, what did you say again? I was too busy staring at your RMS-esque beard and long hair to listen to your PhD level ideas. Was that your fault or mine? Maybe I should fix my own attitudes before I tell others to fix theirs. Hmmm.....
Which is why the great majority of Mac users would still buy the official copy from Apple. I would, every single time. Most Apple users are fanatically faithful to the "mothership". I've spent FAR more on Mac and Linux stuff (CD's, books, magazines, shirts, etc.) than I've spent on MS stuff (which is zero, not counting the mandatory copies of 98 that came with my PC's.)
Having the source code would be a great boon for users and developers and good for Apple's marketshare.
Just think of it as another windowing system over another unix. But with pricey hardware.
...and closed source. That means Apple can go DRM any time they want. You're dependent on their good will. And with them making the whole widget, DRM on Macs will be A BITCH to crack. Hopefully they aren't just blowin' smoke right now, trying to get the geek vote and a few new "switchers".
I REALLY REALLY hope they don't crack under the pressure of Follywood, but remember, Apple's a BSA-lovin' member of corporate Amerika who can't rock the boat too much without harming themselves. And if there's one thing I know about Apple, it's that their noble gestures and stances are fine until the consequences come back to bite them. Unfortunately, I think Steve will roll over on us under enough pressure. In the past, Apple waved the Pirate flag. They were hippies who wanted to change the world. Today, they have "grown up". They are 100% corporate. It's ALL about money now, and even Steve will tell you that - off-camera, of course.
Today, I love Apple. But who knows what will happen tomorrow? Another so-called "terrorist" attack or corporate losing quarter and the US government will have the momentum necessary to make DRM *mandatory*. And with the soft money from Hollywood coming in like manna from Heaven, it can easily happen. And Apple will cave.
The first time Slashdot led me to the NYTimes, I cynically tried
loginssuck
which, of course, had already been registered and worked as both login and password - until today, when the NYTimes sees this post and kills it forever.
OFFTOPIC: Kinda like when I had to reregister for Napster after the Metallica thing and I tried MetallicaSucks but it was already taken. In fact, ALL the insulting Metallica phrases were already taken. And all the ones about Lars Ulrich being gay and heavily into dead goats. Yup, Metallica sold out just to give their lame attitudes a chance to catch up with their lame music. They've sucked since the Black Album, getting weaker and weaker with each feeble, impotent, corporately-inspired, kiss-ass smarmy attempt. Sarah McLachlan could kick the whole bands' asses at once with one of her vegetarian curry pitas. They suck. That's the last time I ever buy their crap. Coincidentally, I never had to download their stuff since I had all their CD's (at least the ones that didn't suck, and I didn't want the stuff that did suck). But now, I won't EVER buy their mediawhoring wares again, even if they miraculously stopped sucking so bad. Good riddance to bad rubbish. It's been years, and I still hate them with a passion. Sheesh! At least Ozzy was smart enough (or drunk enough) to keep his mouth shut. And by the way, downloading MP3's has expanded my horizons, getting me into tons of cool bands (Type O Negative!), all of which I have bought multiple CD's for, and which happily replace Metallica as my prime listening. Stupid fools.
Please don't insult the monkeys. At least you could say that it's a Ballmerific! metaphor.
Oh, wait, that's a baboon. My bad.
BlackBolt
Re:Good arguments not to use Ximian
on
Inside Ximian
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and they all wear blue shirts and ties every day. And they all drive Volvos and SUVs.
Thanks for the stereotyping and generalizations, it stops people from thinking.
BlackBolt
Re:Frequently Asked User Interface Questions
on
Inside Ximian
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Why should we all use the same kind of UI?
Because the desktop model is the best one we have right now, just like cars all seem to have four wheels, even though they're all different models and colours, and clothing is all basically designed the same, and music typically follows the same patterns and rhythms.
When somebody comes up with something more intuitive, 3-dimensional, or whatever, all the OSes will flock to it. But until someone figures it out, this is all we got. See what you can do. I've tried, and it always comes back to the current design, or thereabouts (title bars, icons, etc.). Any variation is usually weaker. I personally think that to evolve from this system, we have to ditch the monitor and get something else.
BlackBolt
Re:Why _do_ people buy Ximian?
on
Inside Ximian
·
· Score: 1
Whoa. Deja vu.
BlackBolt
Re:Fenway neighborhood, huh?
on
Inside Ximian
·
· Score: 1
Does AOL even use their own Netscape product with their web subscriptions, or is that IE deal still in play? How retarded can you be? It's like Pepsi having a Coke machine in the lobby. Doesn't make sense.
But then again, neither does this post.
And it seems to me that with the flood of browsers on the market these days, the AOL guys should realize that the former "name brand" value of Netscape isn't gonna float them, especially when it's packed with irritating junk that detracts from what it was meant to do, namely, browse the web.
Read about the Patriot Act at eff.org. You're probably doing something illegal right now. And if you're not, with Patriot, it doesn't matter. There is no need for probable cause anymore. All this stuff's coming together to form a legal and technical noose. You WILL be affected by this, even if you keep your head in the sand.
And if your head's in the sand, that means your ASS is in the air - and unprotected from a nasty DRM raping.
True, but Apple doesn't have to release it under the GPL or BSD licenses. I mean keep it proprietary (no copying, etc.), just not hidden. They can use their mighty legal team ruthlessly on anyone who tries to hack it onto x86. If people really wanted it on x86 now, they could hack it to run pretty easily.
Opening the source for legitimate customer use would encourage standardization, better third-party support, more apps and bug fixes for OSX, better security, and allow users to tailor it to better suit their needs (especially good for corporate users). The specification in their EULA that it is only legal to run it on Apple hardware (that they've just used against the third-party DVD makers last week) would also protect them here. And it would increase their "geek chic" cred to the point where they'd double their sales by luring in the open-source crowd more than they have been by Aqua. AND, it would be their greatest innovation EVER, and you know how Stevo likes innovating.
But I admit, it's not likely that Apple would ever take a risk like this unless they were forced, either by strong competition from the Gnu guys, government edict, or many requests from users. None of which are going to happen any time soon. And recently, Apple innovates product-wise, but they're no longer earthshaking in their courage. Most of their "innovations" are just natural progressions and are pretty safe bets, knowing they have the power to dictate new standards to a large degree. They're getting corporate and staid. Sigh... I remember the Woz years, the Pirate Flag, and the chaotic greatness that was Apple....
The post I was responding to was about how gret it was that LINUX was going to get the commercial programs that are only Win/Mac now. Stuff like Dreamweaver, Photoshop, video editing software, legal DVD codecs, etc.
Who's to say that by then Macs WON'T support DRM? Apple's got more pressure on them than the other hardware vendors, because they're already being targeted for making iTunes and the iPod.
I hope Apple can do the right thing, they've been falling down so much, and this one thing would redeem them in my eyes.....
>> This is a crappy decision, it would be like dell producing computers that will not run
>> 95/98 or older linux kernels.
> Actually Dell and others have done that...
NO. Any Dell sold today can run Win3.1. I've done it. There usually aren't advanced drivers written to take advantage of the new video cards, etc., but it'll run as well as a windows product CAN run.
With Apple, they don't have to worry about compatibility with other hardware vendors, so they can make major changes to their hardware specs with minimal damage. They don't "share" control or standards like PC manufacturers. But because they have total control over the platform, they can FORCE you to run OSX if they want. When I buy a Dell, I can choose what OS I want to run on it - or even design my own. It's all based on common open standards. If Apple, however, closes up their hardware even more, they can control what OS gets booted and by whom. And that's not cool on Apple's part.
Apple: Don't write new hardware drivers for OS9, fine. Don't do ANY work on OS9, fine. But don't FORCE other people off their chosen OS because it doesn't fit your "master plan".
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, Apple's not taking any more of a risk than say, Sony, or any of the other 200 or so makers of portable MP3 players. People think they're "striking a blow for freedom", or "taking a stand", but really they just saw a good market and went for it. The true test of their moral beliefs and strength is how long they can last when the RIAA bribes the government to heat things up. Hopefully, Apple won't crumble under the RIAA like I'm sure many of the other MP3 player manufacturers are doing at this very minute, busily adding in DRM and restrictions on desired functionality.
BlackBolt
Turning into? I think you're a bit behind the times, friend. Slashdot's been a hardcore Apple Corporation cheerleading site since OSX Public Beta. Look at the people who get modded up to "+5, Informative" for saying "My PowerBook gets 10 hours of battery life" while the people who say "Funny, mine only gets 2.5" get modded down... The rule is, if you say what we want to hear, you'll get modded up. If you challenge our preconceived ideas, you go down in flames.
But really, this zealotry hurts Apple - once people switch and find out that much of what was boasted about OSX, Apple hardware, and the loving paternal attitudes of Apple Corporate are not what they were cracked up to be, you have a bunch of disappointed new users upset at losing $3000 for believing the little white lies of a massive propaganda effort. My friend at Apple calls the customers the "unpaid, distributed sales force". That's good, if they truly believe in the product and the company, but there are so many flaming zealots here who have lost all sense of reason or balance that Slashdot sometimes reeks of deception and unrealistic bullsh*t. Giving potential users false hopes about Apple hurts everyone. They're strong enough to stand on the truth, they don't need us pimping their wares for them with lies and hype.
And what's worse, all the zealots give Apple the message that they don't have to improve themselves, because we'll buy whatever they're selling and like it under any circumstances! We need to be tougher on them if we want them to improve. Saying "don't worry, you're doing just fine" doesn't really spur them on. Every time they screw up, a small vocal bunch of zealots spark up their computers and attack any criticism of Apple rabidly. If they screw up, they should be taken to task for it, not defended by the "Mac Pack"! By defending their actions, you give them the message that what they did was okay. They will do the same thing again. Think about how you want Apple to be. When they break that mould, if you have to post, try to influence them to be better, not worse. Right now, they're not accountable because you didn't fulfil your duty as a loyal customer, to remain loyal only as long as their behavior and product quality warrants it.
I confess, I'm saying this because I love Apple and want them to be the greatest computer company in the world. Mac users should be harder on them than everyone else; we have more at stake. But I find people glossing over Apple's failures in an attempt to justify their decision to switch. Honesty is the best policy, not furthering your Apple marketshare improvement agenda.
By the way, you spoke out against Apple, you will now be modded "flamebait" and/or "troll".
And so will I. See you at -1.
BlackBolt
BlackBolt
Actually, OSX is everything *BSD* dreams of being. GNU/Linux dreams about being free. The tech is secondary to the freedom aspect. In BSD, the tech is first, and freedom is largely irrelevant, since they don't care whether their code is proprietized, as was done by Apple for OSX, and by Microsoft in many places for 2000 and XP especially. OSX is great, but it's got a different focus. The true comparison is with the BSD's.
BlackBolt
The question is not whether Linux is being sucked dry by Apple, it's whether Apple and MS got together and agreed that quality Free Software was the greatest enemy of their fat margins and tight control and concocted a plan to wipe it out by stripping the dev community naked with OSX. [/conspiracy theory]
BlackBolt
But as a user who likes to improve stuff, it's on my wishlist anyway. I run into situations where the code would be helpful DAILY. It's great for security, bugfixing, and optimization. I personally would have patched half the stupid little bugs and limitations in OSX *myself* if the source was open. As it is now, we wait for large official updates which may or may not fix our problems. And we PAY for many of the updates. You want double the Jaguar speed for free? Give me the code. There's a lot of itches that need to be scratched in OSX, and a whole lot of developers migrating over from linux and unix who love to code for fun. You do the math. The trickledown of code fixes would benefit *every single user* of OSX.
But for Apple to surrender control in order to gain my customer satisfaction? Nope. I honestly believe Microsoft will do it first, and Apple may or may not follow. They're more stubborn and proprietary than MS (but not quite as evil). But it makes a lot more sense for Apple to do it, since they make most of their money off their hardware, and larger apps like FinalCut Pro that aren't part of the OS. Yes, the OS draws in new users, but it's the hardware I'm primarily paying my $3000 for, and the improvements we users would make to the OS would improve the value of the total package. Think about how many Slashdotters have switched because of Fink. Without Fink providing access to open-source goodies, there'd be a lot less sales of OSX. If Apple realized what they've got and opened the floodgates to us coders, there'd be a lot more sales and OSX would be much better system. And we could be the scapegoats when the DRM guys come calling! Giving the users extra functionality can't hurt Apple beyond what they'd gain in free labor and goodwill. But they'd lose the ability to force the dock on us and dictate how our systems should look and behave. And judging from Apple's history, they're more interested in controlling the system than improving it. The "you-can't-use-our-iDVD-software-with-a-third-part y-DVD" thing comes to mind.
Open-source and free software coders want to "Think Different", but they need the code to make it happen.
BlackBolt
Developing on the Microsoft platform is beyond GOD'S capability. Windows is where spaghetti code and instability go to die.
BlackBolt
This is exactly what Apple is doing to linux and BSD right now with OSX. OSX is stealing the hordes of linux and unix developers who were only "into" linux because it was technologically cool, not because it was free. If *any* part of the system is proprietary, they've got you locked in, whether you admit it or not.
BlackBolt
It's not my fault they sell at a loss. I don't see anyone congratulating the bankrupt dotcom companies for their great business plans. Microsoft's willing to lose money in exchange for marketshare? Fine. I'll buy one and run Linux on it. They're not gonna go under if I don't buy an $80 game. And I don't see any EULA or contract FORCING me to buy games, so this loss-leader crap is their problem, not mine. I'm not going to subsidize their stupidity or buy games out of pity. I feel free to run Linux on it or not buy any xbox games whatsoever without guilt.
BlackBolt
Some people understand the meaning and value of a man's words without judging his delivery or appearance. I do. I'm not even judging you for being an Anonymous Coward. I'm judging your content.
Slashdotters don't hate Microsoft or anyone else more than they themselves are hated by these groups.
Judging first by the shallow things, and second by content, breaks communication. I shouldn't be talking to you, you're probably just another scrawny four-eyed pimply Arabic communist free software terrorist geek who's never gotten laid. Oh, sorry, what did you say again? I was too busy staring at your RMS-esque beard and long hair to listen to your PhD level ideas. Was that your fault or mine? Maybe I should fix my own attitudes before I tell others to fix theirs. Hmmm.....
BlackBolt, sounding like someone's father
Which is why the great majority of Mac users would still buy the official copy from Apple. I would, every single time. Most Apple users are fanatically faithful to the "mothership". I've spent FAR more on Mac and Linux stuff (CD's, books, magazines, shirts, etc.) than I've spent on MS stuff (which is zero, not counting the mandatory copies of 98 that came with my PC's.)
Having the source code would be a great boon for users and developers and good for Apple's marketshare.
BlackBolt
I REALLY REALLY hope they don't crack under the pressure of Follywood, but remember, Apple's a BSA-lovin' member of corporate Amerika who can't rock the boat too much without harming themselves. And if there's one thing I know about Apple, it's that their noble gestures and stances are fine until the consequences come back to bite them. Unfortunately, I think Steve will roll over on us under enough pressure. In the past, Apple waved the Pirate flag. They were hippies who wanted to change the world. Today, they have "grown up". They are 100% corporate. It's ALL about money now, and even Steve will tell you that - off-camera, of course.
Today, I love Apple. But who knows what will happen tomorrow? Another so-called "terrorist" attack or corporate losing quarter and the US government will have the momentum necessary to make DRM *mandatory*. And with the soft money from Hollywood coming in like manna from Heaven, it can easily happen. And Apple will cave.
But here's hoping....
BlackBolt
loginssuck
which, of course, had already been registered and worked as both login and password - until today, when the NYTimes sees this post and kills it forever.
OFFTOPIC: Kinda like when I had to reregister for Napster after the Metallica thing and I tried MetallicaSucks but it was already taken. In fact, ALL the insulting Metallica phrases were already taken. And all the ones about Lars Ulrich being gay and heavily into dead goats. Yup, Metallica sold out just to give their lame attitudes a chance to catch up with their lame music. They've sucked since the Black Album, getting weaker and weaker with each feeble, impotent, corporately-inspired, kiss-ass smarmy attempt. Sarah McLachlan could kick the whole bands' asses at once with one of her vegetarian curry pitas. They suck. That's the last time I ever buy their crap. Coincidentally, I never had to download their stuff since I had all their CD's (at least the ones that didn't suck, and I didn't want the stuff that did suck). But now, I won't EVER buy their mediawhoring wares again, even if they miraculously stopped sucking so bad. Good riddance to bad rubbish. It's been years, and I still hate them with a passion. Sheesh! At least Ozzy was smart enough (or drunk enough) to keep his mouth shut. And by the way, downloading MP3's has expanded my horizons, getting me into tons of cool bands (Type O Negative!), all of which I have bought multiple CD's for, and which happily replace Metallica as my prime listening. Stupid fools.
BlackBolt
Oh, wait, that's a baboon. My bad.
BlackBolt
Thanks for the stereotyping and generalizations, it stops people from thinking.
BlackBolt
Because the desktop model is the best one we have right now, just like cars all seem to have four wheels, even though they're all different models and colours, and clothing is all basically designed the same, and music typically follows the same patterns and rhythms.
When somebody comes up with something more intuitive, 3-dimensional, or whatever, all the OSes will flock to it. But until someone figures it out, this is all we got. See what you can do. I've tried, and it always comes back to the current design, or thereabouts (title bars, icons, etc.). Any variation is usually weaker. I personally think that to evolve from this system, we have to ditch the monitor and get something else.
BlackBolt
BlackBolt
BlackBolt
But then again, neither does this post.
And it seems to me that with the flood of browsers on the market these days, the AOL guys should realize that the former "name brand" value of Netscape isn't gonna float them, especially when it's packed with irritating junk that detracts from what it was meant to do, namely, browse the web.
BlackBolt
And if your head's in the sand, that means your ASS is in the air - and unprotected from a nasty DRM raping.
DAMN, I'm quotable.
BlackBolt
But I admit, it's not likely that Apple would ever take a risk like this unless they were forced, either by strong competition from the Gnu guys, government edict, or many requests from users. None of which are going to happen any time soon. And recently, Apple innovates product-wise, but they're no longer earthshaking in their courage. Most of their "innovations" are just natural progressions and are pretty safe bets, knowing they have the power to dictate new standards to a large degree. They're getting corporate and staid. Sigh... I remember the Woz years, the Pirate Flag, and the chaotic greatness that was Apple....
But it would be nice. :-)
BlackBolt
Here's hoping.....
BlackBolt
BlackBolt
I hope Apple can do the right thing, they've been falling down so much, and this one thing would redeem them in my eyes.....
BlackBolt
>> 95/98 or older linux kernels.
> Actually Dell and others have done that...
NO. Any Dell sold today can run Win3.1. I've done it. There usually aren't advanced drivers written to take advantage of the new video cards, etc., but it'll run as well as a windows product CAN run.
With Apple, they don't have to worry about compatibility with other hardware vendors, so they can make major changes to their hardware specs with minimal damage. They don't "share" control or standards like PC manufacturers. But because they have total control over the platform, they can FORCE you to run OSX if they want. When I buy a Dell, I can choose what OS I want to run on it - or even design my own. It's all based on common open standards. If Apple, however, closes up their hardware even more, they can control what OS gets booted and by whom. And that's not cool on Apple's part.
Apple: Don't write new hardware drivers for OS9, fine. Don't do ANY work on OS9, fine. But don't FORCE other people off their chosen OS because it doesn't fit your "master plan".
BlackBolt