I agree heartily with your premise. I figured out a while back that there wouldn't be any new "amiga" computers. They might bear the brandname, but no matter how much you try to make things backwards compatible, all that does is slow down your progress and make you slower and less competitive. Eventually the old ways have to be abandoned. If you use the amiga's death as an example for others, there will be many vociferous complaints about the end of their architecture with some constantly hoping for a miracle that will allow them to continue working under the old paradigm and others glad that there will be a new paradigm. However, must all software die? Is it tied to the hardware (e.g., portability issues)? Linux was not originally envisioned as lasting this long, much less becoming a market threat to M$. Question is, will it die with windows (which M$ has yet to push onto a new architecture)? I don't pretend to see the future. I personally hope that something better than linux comes along -- it carries a lot of dead weight with its unix heritage. But it certainly outlived predictions of its demise with a predicted fall of the x86 architecture.
i'm curious. what os do you think is the most stable then? You react as if linux stability were a joke. What OS do you use? As for qnx... "a nice little" os is a bit of an exaggeration seeing as it is merely a kernel. "with very little exposure" means that it is somehow inherently better? Or simply that, like Be, there isn't much, if any, commercial interest in it? I know qnx is used as embedded and yada yada yada, but how much is there that will run with the qnx kernel? you may be happy with old architectures and devices, but I don't think the market would agree with you. And Collas states that he is aiming for the market and success, not a new computer that is dead before it hits the market, an interesting but quaint expression of technology.
so what makes you so sure they didn't tell qnx? the fact that qnx doesn't want you to think they knew? one way or the other its all about money when companies are involved so, yes, make qnx happy and buy their os to 'take it out for a spin' but don't get unhappy when there aren't drivers for your hardware...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree heartily with your premise. I figured out a while back that there wouldn't be any new "amiga" computers. They might bear the brandname, but no matter how much you try to make things backwards compatible, all that does is slow down your progress and make you slower and less competitive. Eventually the old ways have to be abandoned. If you use the amiga's death as an example for others, there will be many vociferous complaints about the end of their architecture with some constantly hoping for a miracle that will allow them to continue working under the old paradigm and others glad that there will be a new paradigm. However, must all software die? Is it tied to the hardware (e.g., portability issues)? Linux was not originally envisioned as lasting this long, much less becoming a market threat to M$. Question is, will it die with windows (which M$ has yet to push onto a new architecture)? I don't pretend to see the future. I personally hope that something better than linux comes along -- it carries a lot of dead weight with its unix heritage. But it certainly outlived predictions of its demise with a predicted fall of the x86 architecture.
i'm curious. what os do you think is the most stable then? You react as if linux stability were a joke. What OS do you use? As for qnx... "a nice little" os is a bit of an exaggeration seeing as it is merely a kernel. "with very little exposure" means that it is somehow inherently better? Or simply that, like Be, there isn't much, if any, commercial interest in it? I know qnx is used as embedded and yada yada yada, but how much is there that will run with the qnx kernel? you may be happy with old architectures and devices, but I don't think the market would agree with you. And Collas states that he is aiming for the market and success, not a new computer that is dead before it hits the market, an interesting but quaint expression of technology.
hehehehhe ur pretty funny. i hope not all Be users are as shallow as you...
i guess everyone using fwvm on x-windows is really an M$ user?
gnome with enlightenment defaults to a theme that is amazingly like win9x as well.
truly an old and shallow idea that "what is without mirrors that which is within"
now lets judge everything superficially and be done with it
so what makes you so sure they didn't tell qnx? the fact that qnx doesn't want you to think they
knew? one way or the other its all about money when companies are involved so, yes, make qnx
happy and buy their os to 'take it out for a spin' but don't get unhappy when there aren't drivers
for your hardware...