It may shock you, but some companies do have some ideals guiding them. I'm sure Apple could save money and increase profit by making their computers from cheaper materials and designs. I'm sure they could shave off some of the hardware specs, and *really* make a bargain basement Mac. These would be "rational" decisions that would likely increase their profitability.
Do they? Hell no. Apple does have high standards, an attention to detail, and focus on quality. Some of this is Jobs to be sure, but people don't go to work for Apple to increase shareholder profits.
Meanwhile, look at Google - "do no evil". Gee, that doesn't sound like a strictly rational business-oriented profit-maximizeing priciple to me. They probably could have raked in more money by selling larger and more obtrusive ads, or by selling search placement, etc, just like everyone before them. Instead, they the guts and vision to tell all of these "rational business plans" to take a hike and do it RIGHT. And they've been rewarded for it.
Profit is obviously A motive for a corporation - it is its means of survival. It doesn't have to be the only motive, and it doesn't have to be the primary one. Humans must eat to survive - does this mean that trumps all else, or do we have people that eat enough, and then spend their time pursuing higher goals?
No, but the network treats them all the same. Meanwhile, any meaningful software runs on both platforms. Finally, with OS X Intel, it's only a matter of time (months? weeks?) before we see ways to run Windows and Linux software as-is under OS X Intel.
So yeah, all software now will run on the platform.
Finally, "can't afford it" my ass. This is also the crowd that has half a dozen machines sitting around, and buys $400 video cards. Don't give me that "I can't afford it" crap. If you value your time and experience using the computer, you'll save a couple hundred extra bucks. If you don't value it, then you won't. But quit your bitching and moaning about it costing too much.
To go back to the car analogy, I'm not sitting here whining that my Camry doesn't handle like a BMW. BMW performance wasn't important to me. A usable and enjoyable computing experience day in and out is, so I drive a Camry and use a Mac. YMMV.
Nevermind that most games DO come out for the Mac (if you can stand a delay), and you could have a gaming/Photoshop/Office/UNIX box all in one. Hmm, can't imagine why you wouldn't want a Mac. One box that does all of your desktop stuff, and the "heavy lifting" that your Linux box does.
What utter bullshit. As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!
No, your argument doesn't hold water. Manufacturers create drivers when they feel there is significant demand. Due to Apple including so much on the motherboard of a stock machine, there hasn't been much in the way of demand, so many manufacturers haven't written drivers. Today at least USB and Firewire have allowed lots of things that previously required drivers to use built-in class drivers.
People such as yourself who create custom drivers (for systems such as HPUX, Solaris, AIX, etc) are doing so largely because someone somewhere is deeply tied into a given platform, and is willing to fork over big bucks to support their system. Consumers aren't going to be doing that.
Finally, Apple must continue to control the experience, or we'll get all of the problems that Windows and Linux have with hardware - substandard, feature-incomplete, buggy drivers, and the associated system instability (witness your own BSOD comment).
I'm amazed no one has looked at what this means for Blu-ray - that would seem to be the biggest casualty of all. If it's delayed a year, then it definitely will be the next betamax.
Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?
What, people already forgot the fracas set off when Dave Hyatt landed complete Acid2 rendering in the WebCore CVS (which you CAN download and use - quite easily I might add)?
Please, tell me what reason the private sector has for building manned launch vehicles that can reach beyond low Earth orbit.
* crickets *
Face it, there is NO commercial reason whatsoever to go to the Moon, Mars, etc. This is all basic science, and damned expensive basic science. So unless you want to end all pursuit of said science and knowledge, NASA is the only way to go about things.
The reason NASA wastes so much money is it's funded and has its priorities mandated by Congress. You think management in a private company is bad, now we have politicians dictating scientific goals (or the military - the Air Force had a lot of say in the Shuttle's design).
"Let's build an International Space Station, a permanent manned - ooh, shiny thing... zzzzz.... snrk..! Hey, how about we go to Mars. Yeah, Mars - that's i.... zzzzzz.... national security.... Star Wars....... Lucas sucks.... zzzzzz"
Reality distortion would imply that you now believe his reality. Since you (and seemingly most others) do not, this is much more plain idiocy that reality distortion.
Datacenters? Don't make me laugh. In a datacenter environment you want two things: speed and reliability, both of which mean RAID arrays, and usually SCSI or fibre channel disks. I've actually had clients inquire about getting 18.2GB SCSI disks because they can spread their data across more and more spindles, and add more hot-spares.
Yes, you can RAID these as well, but with fewer spindles for a given dataset you'll have far more problems with I/O contention. I've seen massive commerce sites (one of the top three credit card issuers in the nation) have their site completely crash because they had massive I/O contention on a database server that was serving too many applications at once. Once that server was split in two (to lessen application demands on it), and a few disks and a lot I/O analysis done (to ensure different tasks were hitting different physical spindles), everything was fine. And they repaid us the favor by taking their business in-house after we fixed everything they had "designed". Oh well.
Back on topic, datacenters do NOT want big, large, (relatively) slow disks that will be single points of failure for a LOT of data, and cause massive performance problems.
You teach chemistry and yet you think that the periodic table elements were just shoved into place? My God, and I thought I had some bad teachers in the day.
There's a lot of bullshit comments being made already, and the vast majority surround this one chunk:
Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory. Regular People shouldn't have to learn what/home means or how it differs from My Documents.... Linux UI fundamentals need a reworking to match the habits that Windows users have been building over the last decade
Nothing else makes any real reference to being "Windows-like". Toss it out and read that article again. And again. And for anyone who designs a distro, read it, bookmark it, make it your home page, or print it and put it on your wall.
Asa is saying that Linux *must* be more user-focused, and there's almost nothing in his article except good suggestions that will not remove any of the "geeky cred" or usefulness of Linux.
Things like (for those too lazy to read the RTFA, or are reading with blinders on):
Migration of user settings - even if just basic ones like bookmarks, documents, e-mail settings. Users will immediately feel more at home if their stuff is there and ready for them. Start small with things that are easy (bookmarks, a symbolic link back to their old documents, e-mail settings, perhaps their current wallpaper setting) and continue to build.
Simple software installation - honestly, things like synaptic do a lot to help on this, but Linux needs to have a way for someone to download one thing and have it work. If that means that various Linux subsystems need to freeze their API's more, so be it. The Linux Standard Base project was working on this, and it needs to happen.
Progressive Disclosure - Fewer features in front of the user, not more (but feel free to keep an "advanced" button with all the rest). Only show options that are applicable (the settings vs preferences example was excellent). Only show the "major" programs. The file browser/Open/Save dialogs need a lot of work - show the user how to easily get to where they need to be, and by default hide the "UNIXy" stuff - look at OS X for some inspiration.
Defaults - Continue refining the "out-of-box" desktop experience (leaner main menus, more familiar default taskbar configuration, cleaner and more "professional" UI - Fedora is doing a *lot* right in this regard). Let it all be customizeable, but the defaults must be sensible for the largest (and simplest) audience.
Comfort - This does not mean "like Windows". This means things should work as expected. Drives should mount automatically without any settings or fiddling. Documents should be easy to find. Applications should be easy to install. For God's sake, never allow the X clipboard near a "normal" user (FreeDesktop is working well on that one). Terminology should be simplified ("Home", "Mount", "Execute", and others must go). You should never, ever, ever have to touch a text file, or even hear about something called "fstab".
So, what functionality is the Linux power user going to lose? None. But you'll make it a lot easier for "normal" users to not only get things done, but have fewer questions for their support staff (you).
Actually, programming for the Cell and other game console processors is going to be extremely difficult, as these chips don't support out of order execution, and put a HUGE burden on the programmer and compiler designer to get things right.
Ars Technica has a long article on why using a Pentium M would have probably been a lot easier and more powerful than the XBox 360's PowerPCs or the PS3 Cell.
Don't believe the hype, because that's exactly what it is.
Consider volume - far more Macs are sold than POWER systems (although they are a damn nice architecture). Now, as to how many G5's were sold compared to POWER, that I don't know.
And my point is any lost business is upsetting to the IBM mentality - doesn't matter who or how small. Maybe they had fewer regrets because of Steve, but given this was a high-profile customer, the execs won't be happy.
If you really want a PowerPC box you can get a blade with Dual 2.2Ghz 970s from IBM for US$2259
Not going to do you much good without the BladeCenter chassis. The "low-cost" model will set you back another $2000. Don't forget the required integrated switch modules and such you'll be needing as well. And those 2000W power supplies are going to kill your electric bill.
As an IBMer, let me tell you - IBM *never* thinks losing business is good. Doesn't matter if the customer was the biggest pain in the ass, used up 90% of your support staff, and even lost money on, you still keep the customer as a reference and for potential new business. And before you point to Apple as not much business, I've seen people bend over backwards for contracts a tenth the size of Apple.
No, IBM may not have particularly liked dealing with Steve Jobs, but they certainly didn't have any desire to lose Apple as a customer.
It's a troll, but I'll bite. If you want, you can download Fedora, Gentoo, or Debian and run it on your Power Mac G5 right now, if you so desire. The rest of us will enjoy Mac OS X, thankyouverymuch.
You had me until the gratuitous "children" part. Conservatives always invoke "the children" in any argument that otherwise makes no sense.
Yes, we need to find the people behind this, just as we would investigate and break up any other organized crime ring. That does not mean we suspend all civil liberties and privacy rights to do it, or send countries back to the stone age.
Being more focused on terrorism as a security priority is good. Making sure all of our various investigative departments and governments are working together and sharing information is good. Those are the post-9/11 activities that have made a difference in preventing terrorist attacks. Passing "feel-good" but useless legislation is bad. Including every pet neo-con wish into a blanket "War on Terrorism" is even worse. Giving up our rights and lives to combat a vague fear - that's what "terrorism" is all about. And *that* is what the "War on Terrorism" has gotten us.
Slashdot Mirror
It may shock you, but some companies do have some ideals guiding them. I'm sure Apple could save money and increase profit by making their computers from cheaper materials and designs. I'm sure they could shave off some of the hardware specs, and *really* make a bargain basement Mac. These would be "rational" decisions that would likely increase their profitability.
Do they? Hell no. Apple does have high standards, an attention to detail, and focus on quality. Some of this is Jobs to be sure, but people don't go to work for Apple to increase shareholder profits.
Meanwhile, look at Google - "do no evil". Gee, that doesn't sound like a strictly rational business-oriented profit-maximizeing priciple to me. They probably could have raked in more money by selling larger and more obtrusive ads, or by selling search placement, etc, just like everyone before them. Instead, they the guts and vision to tell all of these "rational business plans" to take a hike and do it RIGHT. And they've been rewarded for it.
Profit is obviously A motive for a corporation - it is its means of survival. It doesn't have to be the only motive, and it doesn't have to be the primary one. Humans must eat to survive - does this mean that trumps all else, or do we have people that eat enough, and then spend their time pursuing higher goals?
No, but the network treats them all the same. Meanwhile, any meaningful software runs on both platforms. Finally, with OS X Intel, it's only a matter of time (months? weeks?) before we see ways to run Windows and Linux software as-is under OS X Intel.
So yeah, all software now will run on the platform.
Finally, "can't afford it" my ass. This is also the crowd that has half a dozen machines sitting around, and buys $400 video cards. Don't give me that "I can't afford it" crap. If you value your time and experience using the computer, you'll save a couple hundred extra bucks. If you don't value it, then you won't. But quit your bitching and moaning about it costing too much.
To go back to the car analogy, I'm not sitting here whining that my Camry doesn't handle like a BMW. BMW performance wasn't important to me. A usable and enjoyable computing experience day in and out is, so I drive a Camry and use a Mac. YMMV.
Nevermind that most games DO come out for the Mac (if you can stand a delay), and you could have a gaming/Photoshop/Office/UNIX box all in one. Hmm, can't imagine why you wouldn't want a Mac. One box that does all of your desktop stuff, and the "heavy lifting" that your Linux box does.
What utter bullshit. As if Apple is preventing anyone from writing a device driver. I guess those companies providing OS X compatible hardware (ethernet cards, video cards, serial adapters, etc) are pulling the IOKit and API specifications out of thin air!
No, your argument doesn't hold water. Manufacturers create drivers when they feel there is significant demand. Due to Apple including so much on the motherboard of a stock machine, there hasn't been much in the way of demand, so many manufacturers haven't written drivers. Today at least USB and Firewire have allowed lots of things that previously required drivers to use built-in class drivers.
People such as yourself who create custom drivers (for systems such as HPUX, Solaris, AIX, etc) are doing so largely because someone somewhere is deeply tied into a given platform, and is willing to fork over big bucks to support their system. Consumers aren't going to be doing that.
Finally, Apple must continue to control the experience, or we'll get all of the problems that Windows and Linux have with hardware - substandard, feature-incomplete, buggy drivers, and the associated system instability (witness your own BSOD comment).
I'm amazed no one has looked at what this means for Blu-ray - that would seem to be the biggest casualty of all. If it's delayed a year, then it definitely will be the next betamax.
Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?
Ah, so you believe then that the more programmers on a project, the faster and better it gets done?
Ahem. Shipping? No. Download it and use it right now? Yes.
What, people already forgot the fracas set off when Dave Hyatt landed complete Acid2 rendering in the WebCore CVS (which you CAN download and use - quite easily I might add)?
Please, tell me what reason the private sector has for building manned launch vehicles that can reach beyond low Earth orbit.
* crickets *
Face it, there is NO commercial reason whatsoever to go to the Moon, Mars, etc. This is all basic science, and damned expensive basic science. So unless you want to end all pursuit of said science and knowledge, NASA is the only way to go about things.
The reason NASA wastes so much money is it's funded and has its priorities mandated by Congress. You think management in a private company is bad, now we have politicians dictating scientific goals (or the military - the Air Force had a lot of say in the Shuttle's design).
"Let's build an International Space Station, a permanent manned - ooh, shiny thing... zzzzz.... snrk..! Hey, how about we go to Mars. Yeah, Mars - that's i.... zzzzzz.... national security.... Star Wars....... Lucas sucks.... zzzzzz"
Reality distortion would imply that you now believe his reality. Since you (and seemingly most others) do not, this is much more plain idiocy that reality distortion.
Datacenters? Don't make me laugh. In a datacenter environment you want two things: speed and reliability, both of which mean RAID arrays, and usually SCSI or fibre channel disks. I've actually had clients inquire about getting 18.2GB SCSI disks because they can spread their data across more and more spindles, and add more hot-spares.
Yes, you can RAID these as well, but with fewer spindles for a given dataset you'll have far more problems with I/O contention. I've seen massive commerce sites (one of the top three credit card issuers in the nation) have their site completely crash because they had massive I/O contention on a database server that was serving too many applications at once. Once that server was split in two (to lessen application demands on it), and a few disks and a lot I/O analysis done (to ensure different tasks were hitting different physical spindles), everything was fine. And they repaid us the favor by taking their business in-house after we fixed everything they had "designed". Oh well.
Back on topic, datacenters do NOT want big, large, (relatively) slow disks that will be single points of failure for a LOT of data, and cause massive performance problems.
If it's so easy and obvious, then why no one has done it before?
You teach chemistry and yet you think that the periodic table elements were just shoved into place? My God, and I thought I had some bad teachers in the day.
There's a lot of bullshit comments being made already, and the vast majority surround this one chunk:
Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory. Regular People shouldn't have to learn what
Nothing else makes any real reference to being "Windows-like". Toss it out and read that article again. And again. And for anyone who designs a distro, read it, bookmark it, make it your home page, or print it and put it on your wall.
Asa is saying that Linux *must* be more user-focused, and there's almost nothing in his article except good suggestions that will not remove any of the "geeky cred" or usefulness of Linux.
Things like (for those too lazy to read the RTFA, or are reading with blinders on):
So, what functionality is the Linux power user going to lose? None. But you'll make it a lot easier for "normal" users to not only get things done, but have fewer questions for their support staff (you).
Well, fuck. Ignore that, looks like it a) was AnandTech, and b) they pulled it.
;)
Don't believe the web, because that's exactly what it is - a web of lies.
Actually, programming for the Cell and other game console processors is going to be extremely difficult, as these chips don't support out of order execution, and put a HUGE burden on the programmer and compiler designer to get things right.
Ars Technica has a long article on why using a Pentium M would have probably been a lot easier and more powerful than the XBox 360's PowerPCs or the PS3 Cell.
Don't believe the hype, because that's exactly what it is.
Consider volume - far more Macs are sold than POWER systems (although they are a damn nice architecture). Now, as to how many G5's were sold compared to POWER, that I don't know.
Obviously, profit margins are another matter.
It certainly is a loss, if they could have had both. IBM never views losing a customer as a good thing.
And my point is any lost business is upsetting to the IBM mentality - doesn't matter who or how small. Maybe they had fewer regrets because of Steve, but given this was a high-profile customer, the execs won't be happy.
There are only two truly intuitive interfaces in existance. The nipple and the vagina. The rest you have to learn how to use.
Some slashdot readers may disagree.
If you really want a PowerPC box you can get a blade with Dual 2.2Ghz 970s from IBM for US$2259
Not going to do you much good without the BladeCenter chassis. The "low-cost" model will set you back another $2000. Don't forget the required integrated switch modules and such you'll be needing as well. And those 2000W power supplies are going to kill your electric bill.
As an IBMer, let me tell you - IBM *never* thinks losing business is good. Doesn't matter if the customer was the biggest pain in the ass, used up 90% of your support staff, and even lost money on, you still keep the customer as a reference and for potential new business. And before you point to Apple as not much business, I've seen people bend over backwards for contracts a tenth the size of Apple.
No, IBM may not have particularly liked dealing with Steve Jobs, but they certainly didn't have any desire to lose Apple as a customer.
It's a troll, but I'll bite. If you want, you can download Fedora, Gentoo, or Debian and run it on your Power Mac G5 right now, if you so desire. The rest of us will enjoy Mac OS X, thankyouverymuch.
You had me until the gratuitous "children" part. Conservatives always invoke "the children" in any argument that otherwise makes no sense.
Yes, we need to find the people behind this, just as we would investigate and break up any other organized crime ring. That does not mean we suspend all civil liberties and privacy rights to do it, or send countries back to the stone age.
Being more focused on terrorism as a security priority is good. Making sure all of our various investigative departments and governments are working together and sharing information is good. Those are the post-9/11 activities that have made a difference in preventing terrorist attacks. Passing "feel-good" but useless legislation is bad. Including every pet neo-con wish into a blanket "War on Terrorism" is even worse. Giving up our rights and lives to combat a vague fear - that's what "terrorism" is all about. And *that* is what the "War on Terrorism" has gotten us.
Or pick Windows and get none!