Well, no shit, it's fucking hard, asshole.
"hamburger+softdrink=happymeal"
Even harder than your letting on, apparently.
By my calculation you just fucking jipped me an order of fries and a toy. I bet you'd whine to customers that its always just some "mundane detail" infecting the code, huh?
If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?
Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that?
My point was, if I develop the spacecraft, it is mine- not NASA's. Just like the X-Prize doesn't own SpaceShipOne. Why is NASA going to give me money to watch me go to the moon? I don't think a NASA that is just a storefront for giving out prize money to watch other people go into space makes a lot of sense. They would become the biggest waste of several billion dollars a year I've ever seen. The X-Prize proves we can have these contests and do this voluntarily with public support as opposed to using NASA's taxpayer funded budget.
As someone else pointed out NASA could try to buy copies of my spacecraft. But at that point, I don't really see the use. Hasn't the private sector just about completely taken over by that point anyway?
No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.
I would find that model acceptable. Whoever buys copies of SpaceShipOne will get a good deal- the X-Prize footed the $10M and someone like Virgin is going to come along and order a few copies and just pay for the spacecraft.
The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.
So, NASA wants to award a prize for the development of a deeper-space vessel. If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA? Do they expect that they'll get design rights to the spacecraft? I just don't understand why government would be giving away our tax money as a prize for a private company to make money. Maybe it is time for NASA to just go away completely. Any of NASA's space technology necessary for national defense or the like could be absorbed into USSTRATCOM. It is clear that at the very minimum, NASA needs to be completely rebuilt. What remains of the shuttle fleet is old and outdated and expensive to fly. We have a partially assembed ISS that seems to serve little purpose unless it is built out to allow for a larger crew as originally designed. The Mars Rovers offer good science but you could easily retain those talented guys as part of a new organization or a stand-alone JPL.
That being said, I'd donate in a heartbeat to a private X-Prize II contest that would have awards for a manned Lunar or Mars mission.
I've wondered about the continual changes to the spacecraft as development has moved forward. Is there more than one SpaceShipOne? Of course I think the answer is probably no, so how much can they continue changing the structure and retain a stable spacecraft?
For example, the test shuttle, Enterprise, was used for a lot of the early testing. But they built Columbia after. To me it is like installing an OS from scratch and applying all these patches over time. If you wanted to reinstall wouldn't you want to try to get a newer version of the OS that included all the patches? You should end up with the same thing, obviously, but perhaps a lot cleaner (and in the case of aircraft, *safer*?)
I know nothing about the prototyping and design of experimental aircraft but maybe someone with some knowledge of history can fill me in.
Don't forget that once MS perceives a threat, they'll throw resources at it. If they think FireFox is a legitimate threat, expect some significant work on IE.
But what does MS have to fear from FireFox anyway? Is Mozilla.org going to cut into MS's lucrative browser sales division? Folks might quit paying hundreds of dollars for IE, all of a sudden?
Actually, the smartest thing MS could do is stop developing the IE browser and package FireFox (if the license would allow it, not sure if it does.) That way, you get someone to develop a major component for free, and you get to focus on core OS development. There are two options if this happens:
Slashdot headline possiblity #1: Mozilla.org scores biggest OSS win ever- MS to bundle FireFox!
Slashdot headline possiblity #2: Microsoft to bundle FireFox to spite tremendous outrage of open source community.
Is it really a good idea to run production code on an Amiga in 2004? Not that it isn't capable, but if the box has a hardware crash, where do you get replacement parts? Will a Commodore on-site service representitive come out to make repairs?
Or, is it not a 24-7 HA type environment? Just curious.
People also praise Linux stability. Maybe so, on the server side. But running KDE I've had more than my share of fatal lockups. Stuff like browsing a samba share that isn't set up just right can send things south quick. Of course, when you bring this up someone will tell you the OS is still stable and you need to restart X. Sure, whatever. Number one WinXP just doesn't lock up like this anymore, and if it did I'd just reboot the damn thing and have it back up in 30 seconds. To hell with restarting my X server and that whole bit. I've got better stuff to do than memorize command sequences to key in to restart my X server because something got locked up.
I like how, when something doesn't work just right in Linux, it is always user error. Nevermind the majority of Linux users are techies to begin with. If I (a sofware engineer of 8 years) am an "idiot user" what the hell is my mom or the kid next door going to be?
This is the second or third story on/. this week that was basically a misrepresentation of the facts. Surprise, surpise- skewed against Microsoft. It is really getting old.
Yeah, big surpise huh that the OS that is running on like 98 percent of the world's desktops is accounting for 80 percent of the spam. I guess the reaction we were supposed to have is "wow, another indicator of how M$ sucks!"
I'm becoming more and more convinced that if OS X or Linux were at the forefront, hackers would find ways to do similar things. And you've had adware, spyware, the whole 9 yards. If you build it and people use it, the hackers, spyers, advertisers... they'll all come.
What is even more sickening is when you're a web developer and your boss makes you develop a new app that is IE only. The developer loses the argument 99 times out of 100 too.
The vertical and horizontal parameters in there where apparently outside the bounds of what the LCD could handle, because when I changed them to match the specs for the LCD, and rebooted, X started fine. I'm no expert of XF86 config stuff though. The default config file was unaltered- it existed just as it had been build for me by the RH 9 install process. It is a pretty bad scene for most folks when an OS will no longer boot into graphical mode. If you can at least get a 640x480 screen at 16 colors, many folks will be able to navigate around and potentially fix the issue. Force 'em into a CLI though, and its game-over. I don't know if X is supposed to have a "safe mode" or if anybody has given thought to including one?
PS: Since when is X unable to autoconfigure a monitor? I've never had this problem.. I conclude that you're trolling.
Wish I were. RedHat 9- was running a 17" CRT, changed to an LCD, X wouldn't start. Had to ssh in and manually change the refresh settings and restart the box.
I think, the typical Linux hacker is so used to doing all these types of things that they don't realize that an ordinary user would even have issues.
I really think the downfall is the fact that people won't accept responsibility for an app or an OS not succeeding. It is always someone else's fault that Linux isn't used on desktops all over. It is Microsoft, it is the government, it is the evil PC manufacturers, or the evil peripheral manufacturers who don't supply drivers.
Yet people are willing to pay for expensive hardware and a $120 a year for a new OS when it is Mac OS X, a UNIX-derived OS. Why? If you don't know the answer, then Linux is sure to remain on servers in data centers for the rest of eternity.
I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.
No, it will fail because for years people have struggled with software installations, OS configurations, hardware configurations, etc. Yeah, wonderful that I have a choice of Gnome or KDE. You know what would be more swell? If I plug in a new monitor, and my X Server won't start, and I DIDN'T have to ssh into the box and manually hack the XFree86 config file before the box will boot at 5 again.
Try explaining this type of thing to Joe User when he buys a new monitor at CompUSA and brings it home. I've been a software developer for many years and I've found the best thing that has benefited my career has been to drop the arrogance I had the first few years and start listening to the users, however "dumb" they might seem at first. After all, they're the ones using the stuff, and without them we just have a lot of OSS technology that is only useful to the development community. Oh, and users are only "dumb" at using PCs. Chances are they're using their PCs do do other types of work that you and I wouldn't have a clue about.
1996 called. They wanted to know why you're compiling from scratch as opposed to using a distribution and its package manager. (*cough* Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Connectiva, Slackware, hell even Gentoo *cough*)
Works okay until you find some app that isn't quite mainstream and still needs to be compiled. Even the smallest, oldest Win32 or Mac shareware app installs easily. Also, installing software on Linux doesn't seem to normally offer to put things in the Gnome or KDE menus, create desktop aliases, run at startup, etc.
I wonder, with something as big as the whole Java world is right now, if you're not right.
Take an OS, for example. Look at the difference between OS X and Linux. Linux is going in every which direction but has more potential than just about anything on the planet.
Apple, however, took Free BSD and put a super nice wrapper on it. They've got managers who keep developers focused and executive officers who keep managers focused. Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc.
A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet. But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?
Don't get me wrong on OSS here. It has produced cool, big things like the Linux Kernel, Gnome, KDE, XFree86, etc., etc. All wonderful pieces of a puzzle that just doesn't seem to fit together quite as well as they need to when it comes to building a complete OS platform.
It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience. If I was in the armed services I would find that insulting.
If Bush had served in the Military as say, a pilot, for 20 years, you'd be saying how he wasn't qualified to do anything BUT be Commander in Chief. You'd say he had no experience running a large organization. Leaders, whether politicians or CEO's, need to have qualities of their own. To be successful, The CEO of Microsoft or Sun doesn't have to have spent 20 years of his life coding, marketing, and doing every little task everyone in the organization does. Most people who've spent 20 years coding wouldn't be able to keep a large organization afloat, quite honestly. This is why a President has a cabinet and a CEO has a CTO, etc.
Make whatever argument you want about Bush, but make it a better one- your attempted argument would be true of just about any President. You argument is honestly so weak I half expect you're just trolling.
BTW, I live in a military town and am surrounded by friends and family who are serving or have served. They do respect Bush. Can't say the same about Clinton. You see, he had this little problem with adultry, while in office, that would have caused anyone serving under him to be excused from service.
Whenever someone mentions Mozilla I think "bloatware".
Maybe, but there are places I will gladly take the bloat of 1.8. For example, my iBook. How OS X has made it so long without including a bi-directional FTP gui, I'll never know. The Finder's support is read only. And I haven't really found a good cost free FTP gui for OS X. So if Mozilla is going to be including FTP upload functionality, this is good news for me.
The Finder IMHO is the once place that OS X is still lacking. I mean, you can browse and read-write any file system you want using OS X, but FTP is still read only? Go figure.
arcade machines (and, presumably, the X-arcade) use microswitches designed to be hammered upon by excited and frustrated kids.
While this may be true today (I haven't played a game in an arcade in years) it wasn't true 20 years ago. I have a Ms Pac cocktail in my dining room, an original Midway (not some brand new copy like they're now selling.) The original joysticks used leaf switches as opposed to micro switches. The difference in game play is pretty big IMHO. There is nothing like flying around the Ms Pac maze with a leaf switch joystick that gives you just the right amount of "bounce back". Compare that to the unfortunate 21st century replacements I ended up buying for the game which are micro switch. It just ain't the same.
P.S. while we're on the topic, those old Midway games are some real old school shit. Mine has the original monitor, I believe. It has been re-cap'ed several times but still works.
Re:Maybe it's me; I don't see the point of JDS.
on
Sun Java Desktop 2 Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
See the post from someone else a little ways up the list. The whole point of JDS is stability and centralized management of extremely large numbers of workstations. Distros like Fedora and Mandrake would be an absolute nightmare if you were supporting thousands of users.
Corporations spend *a lot* of time with internal end user support. So much so, that it is just nutty. I did that type of work when I was in college and it was just ridiculous. You've got users who aren't much above using their CD ROM as a cup holder. The last thing you need is a call from some dude up on the 40th floor who decided he was going to quit taking inbound calls for an afternoon because he decided he'd go with KOffice instead of Open Office, and he really wanted to give KDE a shot over Gnome but wanted it to look like his iMac at home so he's adding in some Aqua and pinstripe eye candy.
A better business model would be to blanket the U.S. with a WiFi services, and have a setup where someone can sign up and be assured that he has access wherever he goes that has a hotspot.
The T-Mobile stuff has two big problems- too expensive and not nearly enough hot spots. There is no way I'm paying their rates and only have access at Starbucks and a few select airport areas, etc.
By the same token, any business owner should feel free to offer free WiFi in the hopes of attracting more customers- it costs very little for a small business- simply corporate grade DSL and a bit of hardware.
Ah, but if you wait for the yearly update to OS X, and stay up late to go to the Mac store, chances are very good (based on the last two years) that you'll be getting a cool 10 percent off. Yeah, dawg.
Slashdot Mirror
Well put. I think your comments are right on.
Well, no shit, it's fucking hard, asshole.
"hamburger+softdrink=happymeal"
Even harder than your letting on, apparently.
By my calculation you just fucking jipped me an order of fries and a toy. I bet you'd whine to customers that its always just some "mundane detail" infecting the code, huh?
You can just call me Mike.
If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA?
Um, isn't NASA's mission to promote the exploration of space, or something like that?
My point was, if I develop the spacecraft, it is mine- not NASA's. Just like the X-Prize doesn't own SpaceShipOne. Why is NASA going to give me money to watch me go to the moon? I don't think a NASA that is just a storefront for giving out prize money to watch other people go into space makes a lot of sense. They would become the biggest waste of several billion dollars a year I've ever seen. The X-Prize proves we can have these contests and do this voluntarily with public support as opposed to using NASA's taxpayer funded budget.
As someone else pointed out NASA could try to buy copies of my spacecraft. But at that point, I don't really see the use. Hasn't the private sector just about completely taken over by that point anyway?
No, NASA will buy copies of your ship from you, that is how you make a profit and NASA gets a good ship for less of the taxpayers money.
I would find that model acceptable. Whoever buys copies of SpaceShipOne will get a good deal- the X-Prize footed the $10M and someone like Virgin is going to come along and order a few copies and just pay for the spacecraft.
The thing is, Scaled has spent over $20M already. The $10M is obviously a big help, if they win- but it isn't the primary motivating factor. It couldn't be- you don't spend $20M to win $10M.
So, NASA wants to award a prize for the development of a deeper-space vessel. If I develop a lunar capable spacecraft and win the prize, how does this help NASA? Do they expect that they'll get design rights to the spacecraft? I just don't understand why government would be giving away our tax money as a prize for a private company to make money. Maybe it is time for NASA to just go away completely. Any of NASA's space technology necessary for national defense or the like could be absorbed into USSTRATCOM. It is clear that at the very minimum, NASA needs to be completely rebuilt. What remains of the shuttle fleet is old and outdated and expensive to fly. We have a partially assembed ISS that seems to serve little purpose unless it is built out to allow for a larger crew as originally designed. The Mars Rovers offer good science but you could easily retain those talented guys as part of a new organization or a stand-alone JPL.
That being said, I'd donate in a heartbeat to a private X-Prize II contest that would have awards for a manned Lunar or Mars mission.
I've wondered about the continual changes to the spacecraft as development has moved forward. Is there more than one SpaceShipOne? Of course I think the answer is probably no, so how much can they continue changing the structure and retain a stable spacecraft?
For example, the test shuttle, Enterprise, was used for a lot of the early testing. But they built Columbia after. To me it is like installing an OS from scratch and applying all these patches over time. If you wanted to reinstall wouldn't you want to try to get a newer version of the OS that included all the patches? You should end up with the same thing, obviously, but perhaps a lot cleaner (and in the case of aircraft, *safer*?)
I know nothing about the prototyping and design of experimental aircraft but maybe someone with some knowledge of history can fill me in.
Don't forget that once MS perceives a threat, they'll throw resources at it. If they think FireFox is a legitimate threat, expect some significant work on IE.
But what does MS have to fear from FireFox anyway? Is Mozilla.org going to cut into MS's lucrative browser sales division? Folks might quit paying hundreds of dollars for IE, all of a sudden?
Actually, the smartest thing MS could do is stop developing the IE browser and package FireFox (if the license would allow it, not sure if it does.) That way, you get someone to develop a major component for free, and you get to focus on core OS development. There are two options if this happens:
Slashdot headline possiblity #1:
Mozilla.org scores biggest OSS win ever- MS to bundle FireFox!
Slashdot headline possiblity #2:
Microsoft to bundle FireFox to spite tremendous outrage of open source community.
Is it really a good idea to run production code on an Amiga in 2004? Not that it isn't capable, but if the box has a hardware crash, where do you get replacement parts? Will a Commodore on-site service representitive come out to make repairs?
Or, is it not a 24-7 HA type environment? Just curious.
People also praise Linux stability. Maybe so, on the server side. But running KDE I've had more than my share of fatal lockups. Stuff like browsing a samba share that isn't set up just right can send things south quick. Of course, when you bring this up someone will tell you the OS is still stable and you need to restart X. Sure, whatever. Number one WinXP just doesn't lock up like this anymore, and if it did I'd just reboot the damn thing and have it back up in 30 seconds. To hell with restarting my X server and that whole bit. I've got better stuff to do than memorize command sequences to key in to restart my X server because something got locked up.
I like how, when something doesn't work just right in Linux, it is always user error. Nevermind the majority of Linux users are techies to begin with. If I (a sofware engineer of 8 years) am an "idiot user" what the hell is my mom or the kid next door going to be?
This is the second or third story on /. this week that was basically a misrepresentation of the facts. Surprise, surpise- skewed against Microsoft. It is really getting old.
Yeah, big surpise huh that the OS that is running on like 98 percent of the world's desktops is accounting for 80 percent of the spam. I guess the reaction we were supposed to have is "wow, another indicator of how M$ sucks!" I'm becoming more and more convinced that if OS X or Linux were at the forefront, hackers would find ways to do similar things. And you've had adware, spyware, the whole 9 yards. If you build it and people use it, the hackers, spyers, advertisers... they'll all come.
What is even more sickening is when you're a web developer and your boss makes you develop a new app that is IE only. The developer loses the argument 99 times out of 100 too.
The vertical and horizontal parameters in there where apparently outside the bounds of what the LCD could handle, because when I changed them to match the specs for the LCD, and rebooted, X started fine. I'm no expert of XF86 config stuff though. The default config file was unaltered- it existed just as it had been build for me by the RH 9 install process. It is a pretty bad scene for most folks when an OS will no longer boot into graphical mode. If you can at least get a 640x480 screen at 16 colors, many folks will be able to navigate around and potentially fix the issue. Force 'em into a CLI though, and its game-over. I don't know if X is supposed to have a "safe mode" or if anybody has given thought to including one?
PS: Since when is X unable to autoconfigure a monitor? I've never had this problem.. I conclude that you're trolling.
Wish I were. RedHat 9- was running a 17" CRT, changed to an LCD, X wouldn't start. Had to ssh in and manually change the refresh settings and restart the box.
I think, the typical Linux hacker is so used to doing all these types of things that they don't realize that an ordinary user would even have issues.
I really think the downfall is the fact that people won't accept responsibility for an app or an OS not succeeding. It is always someone else's fault that Linux isn't used on desktops all over. It is Microsoft, it is the government, it is the evil PC manufacturers, or the evil peripheral manufacturers who don't supply drivers.
Yet people are willing to pay for expensive hardware and a $120 a year for a new OS when it is Mac OS X, a UNIX-derived OS. Why? If you don't know the answer, then Linux is sure to remain on servers in data centers for the rest of eternity.
I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.
No, it will fail because for years people have struggled with software installations, OS configurations, hardware configurations, etc. Yeah, wonderful that I have a choice of Gnome or KDE. You know what would be more swell? If I plug in a new monitor, and my X Server won't start, and I DIDN'T have to ssh into the box and manually hack the XFree86 config file before the box will boot at 5 again.
Try explaining this type of thing to Joe User when he buys a new monitor at CompUSA and brings it home. I've been a software developer for many years and I've found the best thing that has benefited my career has been to drop the arrogance I had the first few years and start listening to the users, however "dumb" they might seem at first. After all, they're the ones using the stuff, and without them we just have a lot of OSS technology that is only useful to the development community. Oh, and users are only "dumb" at using PCs. Chances are they're using their PCs do do other types of work that you and I wouldn't have a clue about.
1996 called. They wanted to know why you're compiling from scratch as opposed to using a distribution and its package manager. (*cough* Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Connectiva, Slackware, hell even Gentoo *cough*)
Works okay until you find some app that isn't quite mainstream and still needs to be compiled. Even the smallest, oldest Win32 or Mac shareware app installs easily. Also, installing software on Linux doesn't seem to normally offer to put things in the Gnome or KDE menus, create desktop aliases, run at startup, etc.
Good points.
I wonder, with something as big as the whole Java world is right now, if you're not right.
Take an OS, for example. Look at the difference between OS X and Linux. Linux is going in every which direction but has more potential than just about anything on the planet.
Apple, however, took Free BSD and put a super nice wrapper on it. They've got managers who keep developers focused and executive officers who keep managers focused. Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc.
A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet. But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?
Don't get me wrong on OSS here. It has produced cool, big things like the Linux Kernel, Gnome, KDE, XFree86, etc., etc. All wonderful pieces of a puzzle that just doesn't seem to fit together quite as well as they need to when it comes to building a complete OS platform.
Perhaps it will optionally come pre-loaded with the entire ITMS library?
It's like the joke that Bush is supreme commander of American troops -- a man who has no real military experience. If I was in the armed services I would find that insulting.
If Bush had served in the Military as say, a pilot, for 20 years, you'd be saying how he wasn't qualified to do anything BUT be Commander in Chief. You'd say he had no experience running a large organization. Leaders, whether politicians or CEO's, need to have qualities of their own. To be successful, The CEO of Microsoft or Sun doesn't have to have spent 20 years of his life coding, marketing, and doing every little task everyone in the organization does. Most people who've spent 20 years coding wouldn't be able to keep a large organization afloat, quite honestly. This is why a President has a cabinet and a CEO has a CTO, etc.
Make whatever argument you want about Bush, but make it a better one- your attempted argument would be true of just about any President. You argument is honestly so weak I half expect you're just trolling.
BTW, I live in a military town and am surrounded by friends and family who are serving or have served. They do respect Bush. Can't say the same about Clinton. You see, he had this little problem with adultry, while in office, that would have caused anyone serving under him to be excused from service.
Whenever someone mentions Mozilla I think "bloatware".
Maybe, but there are places I will gladly take the bloat of 1.8. For example, my iBook. How OS X has made it so long without including a bi-directional FTP gui, I'll never know. The Finder's support is read only. And I haven't really found a good cost free FTP gui for OS X. So if Mozilla is going to be including FTP upload functionality, this is good news for me.
The Finder IMHO is the once place that OS X is still lacking. I mean, you can browse and read-write any file system you want using OS X, but FTP is still read only? Go figure.
arcade machines (and, presumably, the X-arcade) use microswitches designed to be hammered upon by excited and frustrated kids.
While this may be true today (I haven't played a game in an arcade in years) it wasn't true 20 years ago. I have a Ms Pac cocktail in my dining room, an original Midway (not some brand new copy like they're now selling.) The original joysticks used leaf switches as opposed to micro switches. The difference in game play is pretty big IMHO. There is nothing like flying around the Ms Pac maze with a leaf switch joystick that gives you just the right amount of "bounce back". Compare that to the unfortunate 21st century replacements I ended up buying for the game which are micro switch. It just ain't the same.
P.S. while we're on the topic, those old Midway games are some real old school shit. Mine has the original monitor, I believe. It has been re-cap'ed several times but still works.
See the post from someone else a little ways up the list. The whole point of JDS is stability and centralized management of extremely large numbers of workstations. Distros like Fedora and Mandrake would be an absolute nightmare if you were supporting thousands of users.
Corporations spend *a lot* of time with internal end user support. So much so, that it is just nutty. I did that type of work when I was in college and it was just ridiculous. You've got users who aren't much above using their CD ROM as a cup holder. The last thing you need is a call from some dude up on the 40th floor who decided he was going to quit taking inbound calls for an afternoon because he decided he'd go with KOffice instead of Open Office, and he really wanted to give KDE a shot over Gnome but wanted it to look like his iMac at home so he's adding in some Aqua and pinstripe eye candy.
Don't forget Madrake, who almost went out of business before ending up not going out of business. Not a bad distro in its own space, IMHO.
A better business model would be to blanket the U.S. with a WiFi services, and have a setup where someone can sign up and be assured that he has access wherever he goes that has a hotspot.
The T-Mobile stuff has two big problems- too expensive and not nearly enough hot spots. There is no way I'm paying their rates and only have access at Starbucks and a few select airport areas, etc.
By the same token, any business owner should feel free to offer free WiFi in the hopes of attracting more customers- it costs very little for a small business- simply corporate grade DSL and a bit of hardware.
Ah, but if you wait for the yearly update to OS X, and stay up late to go to the Mac store, chances are very good (based on the last two years) that you'll be getting a cool 10 percent off. Yeah, dawg.