No surprise. This is the same company that charges you $10 for the ability to use their media player to play videos at full screen, for crying out loud. They charge $130 for incremental OS updates every 12-18 months, which is basically a subscription service. They're charging $2 to enable the 802.11n hardware that they will ship.
Apple is the king of "nickel and dime"ing the user for all it's worth.
I have seen a kernel panic in OSX, but it was years ago in 10.1. But I have had to reboot my Mac when the beach ball of death kept spinning. I've also had my Mac system get corrupted, needing the "repair permissions" nonsense. And I've had my system get corrupted such that it would recognize my admin password to allow me to log in, but wouldn't recognize my admin password afterwards. Repairing permissions did nothing; I had to reinstall the OS to fix it.
"And to pour salt on the wound, I hear Microsoft's promise not to sue only applies to those who can fully implement their "Open Standard". "
You heard wrong. That was more of IBM's FUD. When are you going to understand that 99.99% of IBM's statements regarding OOXML are to be disregarded as pure FUD (FUD is an invention of IBM). You do NOT have to fully implement the standard.
I notice that your item 1. "The community puts more effort into supporting game developers on Linux (tools, API, etc)", mentions nothing about actually *buying* the games! Your "support" goes for tools, but not buying games. The notion of paying for software is anathema to Linux users. Why in the hell would a game developer target a community that not only refuses to pay for software, but also condones piracy (see the constant rants against any and all attempts at copy protection of software), and demands not only the source code, but the right to compile the code (altered or not), and distribute the code and compiled programs to others for free?
AAA games take millions of dollars to produce. Can you guarantee that the Linux community will *buy* games in sufficient numbers to cover the cost?
Vista must be pretty good for a Mac fanboy like Mossberg to not be able to totally trash it.
Regarding OSX: Mossberg praises OSX, yet dismisses Vista with "Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP." Guess what, Mossberg, the same can be said for OSX Tiger. OSX 10.4 "overall works pretty much the same way as" OSX 10.3, 10.2, 10.1, 10.0. Yet Mossberg acted like OSX Tiger was the second coming, that it was a compelling upgrade over Panther. Well, when you compare OSX Tiger with Panther, Tiger adds nothing major except Spotlight and Dashboard. Well Vista gets those same things (and more), so if Tiger is a major improvement over Panther (as Mossberg and other Mac fanboys claim), then Vista must be at least as much a major improvement over XP. That's just logic. Of course, use of logic is foreign to those practiced in fanboyism.
...whether ISO has simply become a dumping ground for people simply wanting to market their stuff as standards (ECMA), or a real standards body.
You mean like how ISO rubberstamped the half-spec for ODF that OASIS submitted? You don't even have spreadsheet formulas spec'ed for crying out loud! OO.o is the "reference" implementation. Whenever anyone implements ODF and runs into a wall because the spec isn't fully spec'ed, they say, "Just do whatever OO.o does". Some spec. It's a spec based on and written for OO.o, indeed it's derived from OO.o's previous XML format. And OO.o writes lots of stuff in its documents that are NOT in the spec (spreadsheet formulas being the most well known example).
ISO rubberstamped ODF with no revisions, no critiques, or any opposition (despite MS being one of the committee members for the ISO rubberstamping; MS raised no objections, quite apart from IBM crying like a baby and getting outvoted 20 to 1 at the ECMA ratification of OOXML).
And the ECMA process for OOXML was far more rigorous than ISO's rubberstamping of ODF. The ECMA process took over a year, with various revisions. And the parties involved included governments, tech companies (e.g. Apple and Novell), and businesses. The issues that IBM is whining about were raised during that process (Novell themselves (which, I know you guys despise now) raised many of the same issues), and they were dealt with. There were some issues for which doing the so-called "right" thing would have been counter productive as those cases are exremely rare (much more rare than creating spreadsheets with formulas, which OASIS didn't bother to spec for ODF). Others were dealt with the "right" way.
Pragmatism has its place. THat's something you guys can't seem to get thru your thick skulls. And your double-standards and hypocrisy are beyond belief. "Don't complain about the spec in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own."
And you guys are now running around trying to convince governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF, even when the ODF spec doesn't cover everything that OO.o does, let alone MS Office. And one of the reasons for the latter, is that by mandating exclusive use of a format that doesn't cover MS Office's features, you automatically make those features irrelevant since they couldn't be used, therefore evening the playing field wrt features, not by OO.o catching up, but by government fiat! You guys are too much!
I'm not going to bother to read the transcript, but I think it's well known that Excel accidentally used undocumented api in the Win3.x timeframe, when a Windows dev was transferred to Excel and he used an internal windows function. But that function does NOTHING that couldn't be done with public API. The offending code as since been removed, long long ago (I believe in the last Win16 version of Excel). This was around 1992, so I'll just assume that's what this is about, even without reading the tanscript.:p
"I think Microsoft should drop IE today. They're just wasting resources... IE makes no money for them, and nowdays every site out there works on almost every browser."
I think they should dump IE and bundle Firefox. The only problem is that if they did that, Firefox instantly becomes the number 1 target for malware, and given that Firefox already has constant security updates, I don't have much faith in them handling the resulting attacks as well as MS has (which isn't that well to begin with). Same goes for Opera. Opera has had amost zero security updates in its lifetime. Are we to believe that it's perfect, then? The fact is that Opera has only 0.2 percent share and we have no idea how secure it is. I bet that it's much less secure than IE or FF, as those browsers have had security updates to fix holes while Opera's holes just live on and on, undiscovered (pure speculation, of course).
"Also, I think Microsoft is loosing money by being this giantic monolith. They should split the company into an OS company (Windows), an Enterprise Solution provider (SQL Server, Office,.NET), a Hardware company (XBox, Zune) and a Content provider (MSN).
How many opportunities has Microsoft lost in the name of their stablished monopoly? SQL Server for Linux, BSD and Solaris? MS Office for Linux desktops?.NET on Big Iron? There's lots of money to be made, but Microsoft can't do it, because it won't compete with itself (Windows)."
They should split, but not along the lines you describe. And Office for Linux? Give me a break. The resulting revenue wouldn't come close to the cost of development. Linux marketshare is too small, and most Linux users don't believe in paying for software. Is there ANY commercial software that makes real money on Linux? Nope. And that includes companies that don't have an OS "monopoly" interest. And Microsoft already makes Office for Mac, so Office isn't being used to protect Windows marketshare even today. But Mac users actually buy software, which is why you do see commercial software for Mac that you don't see on Linux (and Mac has an order of magnitude larger userbase according to web activity stats).
To expound on my point, if it were only the keys themselves that were provided, then you could make an argument that this about "Fair Use", "avoidng Hollywood's lockin to make you rebuy, rebuy, rebuy", blah blah blah. Because then you'd need to buy the disc yourself and use the BackupHDDVD program to rip the movie to a non-DRM'ed file. But the fact that not only are the keys being provided, but the movies themselves over bittorrent means that anyone can get the non-DRM'ed rips whether they legally bought the disc or not, therefore this is about piracy, not fair use.
Bullshit. Piracy is the main issue here. I was just at avsforum.com, and they say that there are now six HD-DVD movies on bittorrent, with 41 more to come (47 keys have been extracted from WinDVD, six of the corresponding movies have been put on bittorrent, and the other 41 are in the process of being ripped and put on bittorrent).
This is piracy, pure and simple. Don't waste time trying to dress it up as something else.
One more thing, regarding your statement: "H.264 may be known to Apple users, however, H.264 is a regular industry standard just like MPEG-1 or MPEG-2"
VC-1 is also an STMPE standard, with lower royalties to boot.
Most slashdotters are afraid to actually find out what's new about Office 2007 for fear that they might actually like it. They prefer to remain in ignorance so they can bash freely.
"Companies must convince us not to steal their property."
That doesn't say much for the parenting going on around here if people have to be convinced by companies "not to steal". That should be lesson number 1 from a parent (or at least in the top 3).
Google and Apple have a deal where the default OSX browser locks you into using Google as the search engine (if you use Safari's search box). No changing of the default search engine, no adding secondary search engines. You just get Google, and that's it. You think that doesn't stifle search engine competition in the Mac market? Come on, now.
Also, you enter any of these search phrases into Google, and Google's own product is shown at the top, either as a real search result, a sponsored link (ever notice that the top sponsored link is always Google's product?), or the "tip" (or whatever it's called): "Word Processor" "Spread Sheet" "Instant Message" "email" "maps" "image sharing" and some other phrases that I can't recall (I'm trying to remember the list from another slashdot post I saw awhile ago). Google's products are not the most used product in any of the above categories, yet Google's offerings are shown on top if you search for them in Google. And since Google does control 80% of search (i.e. they have monopoly power in that area), they should NOT be able to leverage their dominance in search to market their other products (at least that's what you guys have been saying for years wrt Microsoft).
"By admitting DRM is useless and treating customers like clients instead of criminals?"
Customers shouldn't be treated like criminals, but they shouldn't act like criminals either. Many "customers" act as criminals then bitch and moan when they're being treated as such.
What is needed is a DRM that is advanced enough to be flexible enough to allow all "fair use" while curtailing piracy. That would be the ideal. But the reality is that DRM isn't advanced enough and won't be any time soon, if ever. So the best would be to get rid of DRM altogether. But please do NOT pretend that DRM is broken primarily for "fair use". It's broken for piracy over torrents and P2P and warez sites. In other words, it's broken for "criminal" activity, so I seen no reason why those engaged in such should be treated as "criminals".
They could take a more drastic approach, and simply revoke the keys to all software players, since software players are too easy to extract keys from. The already cracked discs would still be available for piracy, but further discs wouldn't be playable on anything but hardware. That would definitely suck, and would render the "victory" as Pyrrhic.
Yeah, cell phones and car phones used to be status symbols when only the rich could afford them. But like you said, there were those sporting fake cell phones as status symbols. Which means that they wanted the status symbol, but not enough to buy the real thing. Maybe people will get fake iPhones too. But for now, only the rich will get real ones for the sake of fashion.
What high school and college students have $600 to throw away on a phone?? And as nothing more than a fashion statement, no less? Yes, I know there are spoiled rich kids to which money is no object when it comes to fashion statements. You appear to be one of them. But that is a very small market that Jobs is limiting himself to.
And a phone as a fashion statment? Clothes, I can see, since they're always visible. Or are you going to be talking on the phone all day just for people to see that you have an iPhone? If you're only going to spend a few minutes on the phone, $600 is a lot for a few minutes of "look at me!!" fashion statements. I think Jobs is trying to turn Apple into a luxury company. But luxury phones are stupid. Luxuries are for clothes, cars, etc not frikkin' phones. And now I read that the iPhone is a closed system. No SDK, no public API, no third party apps. In other words, this phone is inferior to smartphones, yet more expensive, all for the sake of fashion.
From what I gather, there are a number of differences, both in ease of use and features.
For example, Windows Home Server supports automatic redundancy so if a drive fails, you don't lose the data. But they don't use RAID, they use a setup so that you can just plug in additional internal and external drives, and the drive is automatically added to the pool of available drives. But each piece of data automatically exists on two of the hooked up drives.
Quotiing from the article:
On the server-side, WHS finally does away with drive letters. "No-one gets drive letters in Windows Home Server," Headrick said. "They'd just forget where they put stuff." Instead, WHS aggregates all of the storage attached to the server into a single store pool, regardless of whether that storage is internal, external, or a combination. As you add drives to the server, the available storage pool simply increases.
I asked whether this technology was based on DFS (Distributed File System), but Headrick told me that this was, in fact, yet another example of new software out of Microsoft Research. Data is mirrored at the shared folder level, so that two copies of a folder are always stored on two different physical hard drives. It's quite different from RAID, Headrick says. "RAID is an insect spray," he cracked. "With RAID, you must understand the technology, add disks in sets, and its hard to remove drives." With WHS, storage is hot-swappable. You can plug in an 80 GB hard drive, for example, and configure it quickly with the WHS Add Drive wizard. When you want to remove it and replace it with a 500 GB drive, there's a simple wizard for that as well.
Headrick compares WHS storage to toast in a toaster: It's user-serviceable and there are no screws. I think it's one of the most innovative features in the server, and it could very well help revolutionize how people interact with backups, since it will be so easy to add storage and ensure that you're always retaining a wide range of backups.
One final point about WHS storage. Were you to pull a drive out of WHS and try to access the disk from another Windows-based PC, that system would see the disk as standard NTFS. So it will work anywhere, though of course the backups are written in a proprietary data format.
"With that Linux stuff, I would have though that by now he and MS would hate each other..."
You're ascribing the slashdot geek's viewpoint to that of a "normal" guy like Carmack. Carmack, like all "normal" humans, isn't interested in the OSS/anti-MS jihad, where "hate" would be involved.
Slashdot Mirror
No surprise. This is the same company that charges you $10 for the ability to use their media player to play videos at full screen, for crying out loud. They charge $130 for incremental OS updates every 12-18 months, which is basically a subscription service. They're charging $2 to enable the 802.11n hardware that they will ship.
Apple is the king of "nickel and dime"ing the user for all it's worth.
I have seen a kernel panic in OSX, but it was years ago in 10.1.
But I have had to reboot my Mac when the beach ball of death kept spinning.
I've also had my Mac system get corrupted, needing the "repair permissions" nonsense.
And I've had my system get corrupted such that it would recognize my admin password to allow me to log in, but wouldn't recognize my admin password afterwards. Repairing permissions did nothing; I had to reinstall the OS to fix it.
So spare me the talk about OSX being perfect.
"And to pour salt on the wound, I hear Microsoft's promise not to sue only applies to those who can fully implement their "Open Standard". "
You heard wrong. That was more of IBM's FUD. When are you going to understand that 99.99% of IBM's statements regarding OOXML are to be disregarded as pure FUD (FUD is an invention of IBM). You do NOT have to fully implement the standard.
Who gives a shit?
I notice that your item 1. "The community puts more effort into supporting game developers on Linux (tools, API, etc)", mentions nothing about actually *buying* the games! Your "support" goes for tools, but not buying games. The notion of paying for software is anathema to Linux users. Why in the hell would a game developer target a community that not only refuses to pay for software, but also condones piracy (see the constant rants against any and all attempts at copy protection of software), and demands not only the source code, but the right to compile the code (altered or not), and distribute the code and compiled programs to others for free?
AAA games take millions of dollars to produce. Can you guarantee that the Linux community will *buy* games in sufficient numbers to cover the cost?
Too bad it's completely false. OSX 2001 was garbage, even Mac users admit as much.
Vista must be pretty good for a Mac fanboy like Mossberg to not be able to totally trash it.
Regarding OSX:
Mossberg praises OSX, yet dismisses Vista with "Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP." Guess what, Mossberg, the same can be said for OSX Tiger. OSX 10.4 "overall works pretty much the same way as" OSX 10.3, 10.2, 10.1, 10.0. Yet Mossberg acted like OSX Tiger was the second coming, that it was a compelling upgrade over Panther. Well, when you compare OSX Tiger with Panther, Tiger adds nothing major except Spotlight and Dashboard. Well Vista gets those same things (and more), so if Tiger is a major improvement over Panther (as Mossberg and other Mac fanboys claim), then Vista must be at least as much a major improvement over XP. That's just logic. Of course, use of logic is foreign to those practiced in fanboyism.
...whether ISO has simply become a dumping ground for people simply wanting to market their stuff as standards (ECMA), or a real standards body.
You mean like how ISO rubberstamped the half-spec for ODF that OASIS submitted? You don't even have spreadsheet formulas spec'ed for crying out loud! OO.o is the "reference" implementation. Whenever anyone implements ODF and runs into a wall because the spec isn't fully spec'ed, they say, "Just do whatever OO.o does". Some spec. It's a spec based on and written for OO.o, indeed it's derived from OO.o's previous XML format. And OO.o writes lots of stuff in its documents that are NOT in the spec (spreadsheet formulas being the most well known example).
ISO rubberstamped ODF with no revisions, no critiques, or any opposition (despite MS being one of the committee members for the ISO rubberstamping; MS raised no objections, quite apart from IBM crying like a baby and getting outvoted 20 to 1 at the ECMA ratification of OOXML).
And the ECMA process for OOXML was far more rigorous than ISO's rubberstamping of ODF. The ECMA process took over a year, with various revisions. And the parties involved included governments, tech companies (e.g. Apple and Novell), and businesses. The issues that IBM is whining about were raised during that process (Novell themselves (which, I know you guys despise now) raised many of the same issues), and they were dealt with. There were some issues for which doing the so-called "right" thing would have been counter productive as those cases are exremely rare (much more rare than creating spreadsheets with formulas, which OASIS didn't bother to spec for ODF). Others were dealt with the "right" way.
Pragmatism has its place. THat's something you guys can't seem to get thru your thick skulls. And your double-standards and hypocrisy are beyond belief. "Don't complain about the spec in your brother's eye while ignoring the log in your own."
And you guys are now running around trying to convince governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF, even when the ODF spec doesn't cover everything that OO.o does, let alone MS Office. And one of the reasons for the latter, is that by mandating exclusive use of a format that doesn't cover MS Office's features, you automatically make those features irrelevant since they couldn't be used, therefore evening the playing field wrt features, not by OO.o catching up, but by government fiat! You guys are too much!
I'm not going to bother to read the transcript, but I think it's well known that Excel accidentally used undocumented api in the Win3.x timeframe, when a Windows dev was transferred to Excel and he used an internal windows function. But that function does NOTHING that couldn't be done with public API. The offending code as since been removed, long long ago (I believe in the last Win16 version of Excel). This was around 1992, so I'll just assume that's what this is about, even without reading the tanscript. :p
"I think Microsoft should drop IE today. They're just wasting resources... IE makes no money for them, and nowdays every site out there works on almost every browser."
.NET), a Hardware company (XBox, Zune) and a Content provider (MSN).
.NET on Big Iron? There's lots of money to be made, but Microsoft can't do it, because it won't compete with itself (Windows)."
I think they should dump IE and bundle Firefox. The only problem is that if they did that, Firefox instantly becomes the number 1 target for malware, and given that Firefox already has constant security updates, I don't have much faith in them handling the resulting attacks as well as MS has (which isn't that well to begin with). Same goes for Opera. Opera has had amost zero security updates in its lifetime. Are we to believe that it's perfect, then? The fact is that Opera has only 0.2 percent share and we have no idea how secure it is. I bet that it's much less secure than IE or FF, as those browsers have had security updates to fix holes while Opera's holes just live on and on, undiscovered (pure speculation, of course).
"Also, I think Microsoft is loosing money by being this giantic monolith. They should split the company into an OS company (Windows), an Enterprise Solution provider (SQL Server, Office,
How many opportunities has Microsoft lost in the name of their stablished monopoly? SQL Server for Linux, BSD and Solaris? MS Office for Linux desktops?
They should split, but not along the lines you describe. And Office for Linux? Give me a break. The resulting revenue wouldn't come close to the cost of development. Linux marketshare is too small, and most Linux users don't believe in paying for software. Is there ANY commercial software that makes real money on Linux? Nope. And that includes companies that don't have an OS "monopoly" interest. And Microsoft already makes Office for Mac, so Office isn't being used to protect Windows marketshare even today. But Mac users actually buy software, which is why you do see commercial software for Mac that you don't see on Linux (and Mac has an order of magnitude larger userbase according to web activity stats).
To expound on my point, if it were only the keys themselves that were provided, then you could make an argument that this about "Fair Use", "avoidng Hollywood's lockin to make you rebuy, rebuy, rebuy", blah blah blah. Because then you'd need to buy the disc yourself and use the BackupHDDVD program to rip the movie to a non-DRM'ed file. But the fact that not only are the keys being provided, but the movies themselves over bittorrent means that anyone can get the non-DRM'ed rips whether they legally bought the disc or not, therefore this is about piracy, not fair use.
Bullshit.
Piracy is the main issue here. I was just at avsforum.com, and they say that there are now six HD-DVD movies on bittorrent, with 41 more to come (47 keys have been extracted from WinDVD, six of the corresponding movies have been put on bittorrent, and the other 41 are in the process of being ripped and put on bittorrent).
This is piracy, pure and simple. Don't waste time trying to dress it up as something else.
One more thing, regarding your statement:
"H.264 may be known to Apple users, however, H.264 is a regular industry standard just like MPEG-1 or MPEG-2"
VC-1 is also an STMPE standard, with lower royalties to boot.
"Why are the pirates giving ammunition to Microsoft and going with VC-1 instead of H.264?"
First, the pirates aren't interested in your anti-Microsoft jihad. They don't care about "giving ammunition to Microsoft".
Second, most HD-DVDs use VC-1, as it is the best and most efficient hidef codec today. The pirates are just "providing" what's already on the disc.
(BTW, your assertion that "VC-1 is still MPEG-4" is totally wrong.)
Most slashdotters are afraid to actually find out what's new about Office 2007 for fear that they might actually like it. They prefer to remain in ignorance so they can bash freely.
"Companies must convince us not to steal their property."
That doesn't say much for the parenting going on around here if people have to be convinced by companies "not to steal". That should be lesson number 1 from a parent (or at least in the top 3).
Google and Apple have a deal where the default OSX browser locks you into using Google as the search engine (if you use Safari's search box). No changing of the default search engine, no adding secondary search engines. You just get Google, and that's it. You think that doesn't stifle search engine competition in the Mac market? Come on, now.
Also, you enter any of these search phrases into Google, and Google's own product is shown at the top, either as a real search result, a sponsored link (ever notice that the top sponsored link is always Google's product?), or the "tip" (or whatever it's called):
"Word Processor"
"Spread Sheet"
"Instant Message"
"email"
"maps"
"image sharing"
and some other phrases that I can't recall (I'm trying to remember the list from another slashdot post I saw awhile ago).
Google's products are not the most used product in any of the above categories, yet Google's offerings are shown on top if you search for them in Google. And since Google does control 80% of search (i.e. they have monopoly power in that area), they should NOT be able to leverage their dominance in search to market their other products (at least that's what you guys have been saying for years wrt Microsoft).
"By admitting DRM is useless and treating customers like clients instead of criminals?"
Customers shouldn't be treated like criminals, but they shouldn't act like criminals either. Many "customers" act as criminals then bitch and moan when they're being treated as such.
What is needed is a DRM that is advanced enough to be flexible enough to allow all "fair use" while curtailing piracy. That would be the ideal. But the reality is that DRM isn't advanced enough and won't be any time soon, if ever. So the best would be to get rid of DRM altogether. But please do NOT pretend that DRM is broken primarily for "fair use". It's broken for piracy over torrents and P2P and warez sites. In other words, it's broken for "criminal" activity, so I seen no reason why those engaged in such should be treated as "criminals".
Note: I put "criminal" in quotes, because copyright infringement is actually a "civil" offense rather than "criminal", in the US. Unless one pirates more than $1000 worth of works in 180 days, in which case it does become "criminal".
They could take a more drastic approach, and simply revoke the keys to all software players, since software players are too easy to extract keys from. The already cracked discs would still be available for piracy, but further discs wouldn't be playable on anything but hardware. That would definitely suck, and would render the "victory" as Pyrrhic.
Yeah, cell phones and car phones used to be status symbols when only the rich could afford them. But like you said, there were those sporting fake cell phones as status symbols. Which means that they wanted the status symbol, but not enough to buy the real thing. Maybe people will get fake iPhones too. But for now, only the rich will get real ones for the sake of fashion.
Except that the best selling iPod today is the $75 shuffle, because it's the cheapest way to join the hip iPod crowd.
What high school and college students have $600 to throw away on a phone?? And as nothing more than a fashion statement, no less?
Yes, I know there are spoiled rich kids to which money is no object when it comes to fashion statements. You appear to be one of them. But that is a very small market that Jobs is limiting himself to.
And a phone as a fashion statment? Clothes, I can see, since they're always visible. Or are you going to be talking on the phone all day just for people to see that you have an iPhone? If you're only going to spend a few minutes on the phone, $600 is a lot for a few minutes of "look at me!!" fashion statements.
I think Jobs is trying to turn Apple into a luxury company. But luxury phones are stupid. Luxuries are for clothes, cars, etc not frikkin' phones.
And now I read that the iPhone is a closed system. No SDK, no public API, no third party apps.
In other words, this phone is inferior to smartphones, yet more expensive, all for the sake of fashion.
For example, Windows Home Server supports automatic redundancy so if a drive fails, you don't lose the data. But they don't use RAID, they use a setup so that you can just plug in additional internal and external drives, and the drive is automatically added to the pool of available drives. But each piece of data automatically exists on two of the hooked up drives.
Quotiing from the article:
If you read the article, you'd see that HP is already signed up to sell MS Home Server machines.. jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/whs_04
"With that Linux stuff, I would have though that by now he and MS would hate each other..."
You're ascribing the slashdot geek's viewpoint to that of a "normal" guy like Carmack. Carmack, like all "normal" humans, isn't interested in the OSS/anti-MS jihad, where "hate" would be involved.