At a price of $2000, why not just get a laptop - one of the mini laptops if you are really interested in small size. A laptop will offer the same functionality and more with the same battery life for a lesser price.
I really don't get this idea of watching movies on PDA's and small screen. I mean listening to music is one thing; but how can you watch a movie on such small screens? And the battery life for such a device won't be that high anyway; to last a plane or road trip anyway... so whats the point?
A mini DVD drive would be cool ofr other reasons, but would probably add too much weight and add to the thickness of the device.
But it can be seen as extortion. Since Microsoft has a monopoly, software is inevitable developped for Windows more than for other OSes. Thus Microsoft can set its own price with a lot of features that you have to pay for even though it does not make any sense to have those features. This is equivalent to extortion.
Another "whats wrong" is the issue of cost and use. Almost every new PC for the corporate market now comes with Windows XP. For the corporate market, there are many "features" of Windows XP that are unnecessary - like Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Games etc. So why should companies be paying more for features that are never going to be used. In fact have a look at a clean Windows XP installation, and see how many of the features you will actually use.
I haven really used.NET and its related projects but I like one of its main aims - the idea of integrating many different languages into one common framework. This leads to the possibility of using languages for their true strength i.e. use VB for interface design and C#/C++ for the actual backend job etc.
Personally, I am a Java person. I like the fact that I can write code on my Linux box and demo it on a Windows machine without any hastles whatsoever. I don see there being any real portability between Linux/BSD and Windows using the.NET framework. At best, it will require a recompile; and just the transfer of CLR code will not work (maybe Mono/dotGNU will prove me wrong).
While I respect the aims of Mono/dotGNU etc; maybe what we are missing is the ultimate portability - a runtime binary that can run across multiple OSes and multiple architectures. Maybe instead of looking at.NET integration the OSS community should look to a step further. I know that most Java runtime VMs are slow; and the main argument to a Java like solution is its speed - but with a bigger focus on a system like this maybe performance will be much better.
Actually, if you put the PS2's linux kit on the system, and then you can just compile Open Office and the Cup drivers...
One of the projects in our class are using the Linux PS2's and they have a similar setup - so it should not be too hard to get it working on the new PSX.
The idea of setting up an easier filesystem is not new - and I think it can be really very advantageous - if only for promoting desktop usage. Using caps in directory names however should not be allowed atleast on the root and system levels. I have been using linux for the past 3 and half years, so I have become quite used to the current file systems, but I still don't know what/etc/ stands for (like/usr = "user") or why there is not a standard application directories (/usr/share/,/usr/local/share/,/opt/...)
Recently, I did a survey about basic computer usage amongst my fellow university students (doing BA degrees only...). Over 60% of them said that they do not care about what OS they use, as long as it is:
1) User friendly
2) Fast
3) Reliable
4) Availablity of common applications (Office programs, Internet, Multimedia etc)
Lindows provides most of the above - and I really admire that fact.
I don't agree with running everything as root - even on my standalone linux machine (with no! connection to internet) I don't run everything as root. There are other ways of getting round the problem - maybe use acl enabled filesystems like RFS and allow instalation as root but configuration as normal user.
I am not the type that will ever use Lindows as my primary [its too simple:)] but I know a lot more that would love to use something like that.
Off course, the one company that has not been mentioned is Micro$oft - and they have loads of cash floating around. They can easily buy out Sun, and get rid of one of their most vocal opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
It is for this reason, that the lab I administer has a Firefox link labelled "Internet" and all links to IE have been removed.
At a price of $2000, why not just get a laptop - one of the mini laptops if you are really interested in small size. A laptop will offer the same functionality and more with the same battery life for a lesser price.
I really don't get this idea of watching movies on PDA's and small screen. I mean listening to music is one thing; but how can you watch a movie on such small screens? And the battery life for such a device won't be that high anyway; to last a plane or road trip anyway ... so whats the point?
A mini DVD drive would be cool ofr other reasons, but would probably add too much weight and add to the thickness of the device.
I guess this formula is perfect for risk managment. I mean you can now quantitavely tell your boss that the project is not worth it.
But it can be seen as extortion. Since Microsoft has a monopoly, software is inevitable developped for Windows more than for other OSes. Thus Microsoft can set its own price with a lot of features that you have to pay for even though it does not make any sense to have those features. This is equivalent to extortion.
Another "whats wrong" is the issue of cost and use. Almost every new PC for the corporate market now comes with Windows XP. For the corporate market, there are many "features" of Windows XP that are unnecessary - like Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Games etc. So why should companies be paying more for features that are never going to be used. In fact have a look at a clean Windows XP installation, and see how many of the features you will actually use.
Will be out at the same time as Longhorn probably ... suppose will make Warez versions of Longhorn ISOs easier to download.
But if the 1024 chickens do it at a lower cost and at a faster speed, why would he bother with 2 oxen?
It won't be commercially successful unless the Porn industry uses it.
I haven really used .NET and its related projects but I like one of its main aims - the idea of integrating many different languages into one common framework. This leads to the possibility of using languages for their true strength i.e. use VB for interface design and C#/C++ for the actual backend job etc.
.NET framework. At best, it will require a recompile; and just the transfer of CLR code will not work (maybe Mono/dotGNU will prove me wrong).
.NET integration the OSS community should look to a step further. I know that most Java runtime VMs are slow; and the main argument to a Java like solution is its speed - but with a bigger focus on a system like this maybe performance will be much better.
Personally, I am a Java person. I like the fact that I can write code on my Linux box and demo it on a Windows machine without any hastles whatsoever. I don see there being any real portability between Linux/BSD and Windows using the
While I respect the aims of Mono/dotGNU etc; maybe what we are missing is the ultimate portability - a runtime binary that can run across multiple OSes and multiple architectures. Maybe instead of looking at
They could just name Firefox / Firebird / Phoenix; Surfer. It could solve most problems.
Note it says "possibly". Also, Linux migration is going to take a long time, and they probably will support multiple operating systems anyway.
Actually, if you put the PS2's linux kit on the system, and then you can just compile Open Office and the Cup drivers ...
One of the projects in our class are using the Linux PS2's and they have a similar setup - so it should not be too hard to get it working on the new PSX.
Great idea - thanks
The idea of setting up an easier filesystem is not new - and I think it can be really very advantageous - if only for promoting desktop usage. Using caps in directory names however should not be allowed atleast on the root and system levels. I have been using linux for the past 3 and half years, so I have become quite used to the current file systems, but I still don't know what /etc/ stands for (like /usr = "user") or why there is not a standard application directories (/usr/share/, /usr/local/share/, /opt/ ...)
Recently, I did a survey about basic computer usage amongst my fellow university students (doing BA degrees only ...). Over 60% of them said that they do not care about what OS they use, as long as it is:
1) User friendly
2) Fast
3) Reliable
4) Availablity of common applications (Office programs, Internet, Multimedia etc)
Lindows provides most of the above - and I really admire that fact.
I don't agree with running everything as root - even on my standalone linux machine (with no! connection to internet) I don't run everything as root. There are other ways of getting round the problem - maybe use acl enabled filesystems like RFS and allow instalation as root but configuration as normal user.
I am not the type that will ever use Lindows as my primary [its too simple :)] but I know a lot more that would love to use something like that.
Off course, the one company that has not been mentioned is Micro$oft - and they have loads of cash floating around. They can easily buy out Sun, and get rid of one of their most vocal opponents.
If he has played Starcraft, he will know what genes to avoid absolutely. The Zerg and the Protoss were afterall created the same way ...
Such good timing I would say ....
http://196.30.226.221/sections/software/2003/03032 00801.asp?A=%&O=F