Those who go GPL and they go "dude, I have no income!! But I have a penguin sticker!!" yeah, I hope that Penguin sticker gets you chicks because it ain't puttin' dinner on the table..
Yes I'd say that google has no income and the guys starve. The way you put it is just plain stupid, you don't allways have to sell the code/program it self, you can build your business by selling services around it.
Now im waiting that when Microsoft attacks against Secunia or some other company.
I can't think anything more stupid than this, if someone pointed out failures in my software I would be thanking the guy.
Fast User Switching, just two years after Windows XP introduced it.
Where is the fast part in windows, if I want to check my mail while someone else is logged in. I have to go from switch user and wait that it loads all the crap in system tray.
But when on OS X there is someone else logged in, I can switch user from terminal, run my app and it takes only a little time, no need to load entire desktop up. Or I could even do nice applescript that does the work for me, asks the password only. It should work:)
I might be wrong, but I think that OS is not run by fonts.
"Linux fonts are ugly, so I can't use it", yes well... You would like to have OS's that have a lot of eyecandy and pretty fonts, even if they don't work and still you would use one.
I don't think that people use windows because of the pretty fonts and nice little icons it contains. I my self prefer, simple and readable fonts that I have found on my linux desktop.
First when I read your comment, I thought that you are on guy from my work. Because he says that "linux has ugly fonts, it's shitty OS." But then on the other hand, he can't speak/write english very well. I hope that there are not too many of your kind:)
Mark Russinovich's opinion about kernel becoming irrelevant might be true with home users that does not care what they use as long as it works. But here is what I think, MS ties everything in kernel, so your graphics/desktop and some other programs are tied to kernel. Sure they run a lot faster that way, but is it good way to do things. I think not, I think that a lot of lockups is a result of this. I'm not OS specialist or any kind of programmer, but my guess is that when program that is tied to kernel causes an error it could freeze the whole system. It's not good or is it?
I'm only guessing, perhaps this isn't the case, please do correct me if I'm all wrong.
It's not only the name, it's marketing the technology. I'm working as a reseller now, so if i ask from a friend or customer why did they choose AMD and not Intel. Usually it's because it is just cheaper, nothing else. But the others who are after "quality", when they answer it's something like "Because AMD has made AMD64, hooray"... But still they buy old 32bit processors. I'm not sure how the 64bit tech helps them with theis old processors, but they seem to think that way.
Sure Macs are more expensive, you can't choose the cheap parts in it. You have to buy high quality computer, not like pc's where you choose cheap parts and start thinking if suicide is an option while assembling the pc.
Why are people afraid of OSX, is it because it's unixlike? Or what? It's still the same system as it allways has been, easy to use efficient, only now it has more tools that you don't have to use if you don't want to. It may look different, but it still feels the same as OS9. You can do everything without opening the terminal, and like it is said before. If you have not used it before or anything like it. You don't need to open it.
If they opened up, others would take what they have done and run with it. People would release 100% compatible versions of Windows, Office, IIS, etc that were more secure with less bug fixes, and Microsoft would have to work harder, spend more money in development and QA, and still end up with less of the market, thus less money. For that matter why would anyone buy XP if Windows NT 4 was still under active development by an open source community that made it just as modern and up to date? Would all this be good for the rest of the world? Yes. Would it make MS "loads more money"? Absolutely not.
Slashdot Mirror
Now im waiting that when Microsoft attacks against Secunia or some other company. I can't think anything more stupid than this, if someone pointed out failures in my software I would be thanking the guy.
Where is the fast part in windows, if I want to check my mail while someone else is logged in. I have to go from switch user and wait that it loads all the crap in system tray.
But when on OS X there is someone else logged in, I can switch user from terminal, run my app and it takes only a little time, no need to load entire desktop up. Or I could even do nice applescript that does the work for me, asks the password only. It should work
I might be wrong, but I think that OS is not run by fonts. "Linux fonts are ugly, so I can't use it", yes well... You would like to have OS's that have a lot of eyecandy and pretty fonts, even if they don't work and still you would use one. I don't think that people use windows because of the pretty fonts and nice little icons it contains. I my self prefer, simple and readable fonts that I have found on my linux desktop. First when I read your comment, I thought that you are on guy from my work. Because he says that "linux has ugly fonts, it's shitty OS." But then on the other hand, he can't speak/write english very well. I hope that there are not too many of your kind :)
Mark Russinovich's opinion about kernel becoming irrelevant might be true with home users that does not care what they use as long as it works. But here is what I think, MS ties everything in kernel, so your graphics/desktop and some other programs are tied to kernel. Sure they run a lot faster that way, but is it good way to do things. I think not, I think that a lot of lockups is a result of this. I'm not OS specialist or any kind of programmer, but my guess is that when program that is tied to kernel causes an error it could freeze the whole system. It's not good or is it?
I'm only guessing, perhaps this isn't the case, please do correct me if I'm all wrong.
It's not only the name, it's marketing the technology. I'm working as a reseller now, so if i ask from a friend or customer why did they choose AMD and not Intel. Usually it's because it is just cheaper, nothing else. But the others who are after "quality", when they answer it's something like "Because AMD has made AMD64, hooray"... But still they buy old 32bit processors. I'm not sure how the 64bit tech helps them with theis old processors, but they seem to think that way.
Sure Macs are more expensive, you can't choose the cheap parts in it. You have to buy high quality computer, not like pc's where you choose cheap parts and start thinking if suicide is an option while assembling the pc.
Why are people afraid of OSX, is it because it's unixlike? Or what? It's still the same system as it allways has been, easy to use efficient, only now it has more tools that you don't have to use if you don't want to. It may look different, but it still feels the same as OS9. You can do everything without opening the terminal, and like it is said before. If you have not used it before or anything like it. You don't need to open it.