Pulls down an application, extracts it and runs it, and voila, said application is now registered with the OS and can be used for handling that file type.
I'll let the incredibly simplistic description of Windows arcane installation procedure slide and simply point out how hard it is to remove that very same application without leaving about a thousand orphaned files and registry entries behind.
As compared to "drag to trash and it's gone" on the mac.
Oh, and before I get flamed as being a mac fanboy, you should note that I use Ubuntu because I don't want to pay the apple premium just to get a shiny machine with a locked down OS.
"I have news for you: at the point when Apple switched to Intel, they joined the commodity hardware market."
Yet people are not running OSX on their PC's. Why is that? *
"t amuses me to see Mac fanboys . . . "
It amuses me to be called a "Mac fanboy"(sic) when I don't even own (or use) a mac. What I own is a bunch of generic whitebox PC's and a Clevo laptop, all running Ubuntu. Just because I have the brains to understand apples business strategy doesn't make me a fanboy dipstick.
* Yes, Yes, I know it is possible to run OSX on a PC, I've done it myself just for the fun of it. Personally I don't particularly like OSX and it isn't particularly stable unless you purchase PC hardware that is very similar to the intel produced parts used during iOSX development, namely a particular couple of intel mobos and video adaptors.
Only if every man and his dog makes similar hardware to run the same software as all their competitors.
The fact is that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They stated on many occasions in the past that they wanted to usurp the position once held by Sony. I think we can all agree they've pretty much kicked Sony's corporate backside in that regard of recent times.
To elaborate further, apple are a hardware company that uses the uniqueness of their software in order to sell their hardware.
The beauty of apple products is in the user interface. Since no other manufacturer is able (for whatever reason) to match the quality of apples various user interfaces apple is able to monopolise the sales of the hardware required to obtain their "superior" interfaces. If they were to sell OSX (or indeed the iPod OS) to any Tom Dick or Harry with a commodity hardware PC then they would lose their ability to monopolise the sales of the hardware needed to obtain their superior interface.
If you don't think Jobs doesn't understand this then you're a fool.
"If I were Jobs I would spin off the hardware into a separate company."
If you were Steve Jobs then apple would now only be found in the history books alongside the likes of CBM and atari. This is exactly what the Pepsi guy tried to do in the 80's and it almost sent apple bust.
Didn't both Novell and Microsoft both admit that the OOXML converter for openoffice would not (and never will) actually do conversions with 100% fidelity?
Uh, I have three credit cards, use them daily and I don't live in a state of "perpetual debt" (where "debt" is defined as "paying interest on money owed") Just because you are incapable of self discipline wrt the use of credit cards it doesn't mean they are bad for everyone.
This is almost as bad as the time some goose bought a mini mac and before the sales launch was a week old he'd gone and ripped the guts out and stuck them in a frickin' PC minitower case so he could "run a cheap server". What a dingbat.
On second thoughts, the mini mac destroyer's effort was *much* worse than this, at least there is some merit to what these guys did and they didn't go and wreck a nice piece of kit in the process. It's just not exactly newsworthy stuff, just some geeks having fun with their toys.
On the other hand, mebbe CowboyNeal just feels the need to see a whole load of incredibly amusing "imagine a beowolf cluster" and "but does it run linux" jokes. After all, it must be several minutes since the last one appeared on/.
I think he does. If he wanted to pronounce that from now on all future versions of the kernel will be released under a different licence (be it GPL3 or MS Shared Source or any other open or closed licence) then he can do so.
What he can't do is force people to use his new versions under the new licence and he can't stop the other kernel developers from forking the kernel from the last version released under the old licence.
Well, I've worked in the industry since before the IBM PC. Back then, people used to build their own computers from kits and were referred to universally as "computer hackers". This was well computer networks were widely known of and hence well before computer security and the breaking thereof was considered to be an issue.
The term "hacker" has since been hi-jacked by the popular media to refer to the aforementioned "criminal activity". It was originally used to describe do-it-yourself enthusiasts.
"You know, you could just *NOT BUY* these products that use this tactic. "
Uhh, which brand of razor/printer would you suggest genius? Where I shop, ALL the razors are pretty much the same price, and all the blades are pretty much the same inflated price. It's inevitable that once one or two manufacturers start using this lockin pricing strategy all the others have to follow as most consumers are brainless sheep who think that cheap razor + expensive blades makes for "affordable products at reasonable prices".
"Some of us don't mind it too much, since it gives us affordable products
at reasonable prices for the expected lifetime of those products."
I rest my case. Anybody who thinks that getting a cheap item as a one off purchase with ongoing consumable items at inflated prices is a good thing is clearly too stupid to be taken seriously.
Linspire have always targetted Windows switchers. They know full well that hardcore geeks would never use Linspire. The Linux community means nothing to them.
"In essence, the GPLv3 makes it impossible for anybody to sell blades after giving away the razor."
You know, I'm struggling to imagine why anyone would consider this to be a bad thing. I for one am sick of companies who employ this tactic. (Yes HP, Lexmark et al, I am looking at you guys) These guys should sell their products (razors, printers) at a profitable level and then compete fairly for sales of the consumables. This practice of luring consumers into buying into your locked-in brand through selling the initial item at a loss with the expectation of making it up through grossly inflated consumable pricing is disgraceful.
In the case of TiVo then they should expect to make a profit selling their boxes, and then offer an ongoing service that is attractive and competitive in the marketplace. If people don't like what TiVo offers them as far as services why shouldn't they be able to choose who/what to run on their hardware? TiVo made a profit selling them the box, they then need to work to keep their customers connected to their service.
Would you buy a Sony TV with the expectation that you could only watch Sony produced programming?
When it is followed immediately by the words "by a woman".
When are these dyke wannabe-men going to realise that they wont be considered the equals of men until they start actually gauging their "achievements" against the standards of men
Time and time again I see the news media breathlessly reporting that some woman has set a world record in something only to discover the words "by a woman" tacked on to the end.
Ladies, didn't Annika Sorenstam teach you anything?
"Intel has multiple times paid for development on GCC. The Itanium, for example, . . . "
Good grief, intel were so desperate to get someone, anyone to write code for the Itanic that I'm not at all surprised they would help the GCC guys out. They simply couldn't wait for Itanic support to trickle through at the normal rate.
"My own pet theory for the ubiquitous cumshot is that it's an artifice used by directors who can't get their actors to evoke a convincing orgasm even when they're *actually* having one."
Slashdot Mirror
Windows user:
Pulls down an application, extracts it and runs it, and voila, said application is now registered with the OS and can be used for handling that file type.
I'll let the incredibly simplistic description of Windows arcane installation procedure slide and simply point out how hard it is to remove that very same application without leaving about a thousand orphaned files and registry entries behind.
As compared to "drag to trash and it's gone" on the mac.
Oh, and before I get flamed as being a mac fanboy, you should note that I use Ubuntu because I don't want to pay the apple premium just to get a shiny machine with a locked down OS.
"It won't suck?"
This is a Cisco product we are talking about here, right?
Of course it is. I bet Novell didn't consider that MS would sue them through the backdoor anyway after they signed up to Ballmers protection racket.
"I have news for you: at the point when Apple switched to Intel, they joined the commodity hardware market."
Yet people are not running OSX on their PC's. Why is that? *
"t amuses me to see Mac fanboys . . . "
It amuses me to be called a "Mac fanboy"(sic) when I don't even own (or use) a mac. What I own is a bunch of generic whitebox PC's and a Clevo laptop, all running Ubuntu. Just because I have the brains to understand apples business strategy doesn't make me a fanboy dipstick.
* Yes, Yes, I know it is possible to run OSX on a PC, I've done it myself just for the fun of it. Personally I don't particularly like OSX and it isn't particularly stable unless you purchase PC hardware that is very similar to the intel produced parts used during iOSX development, namely a particular couple of intel mobos and video adaptors.
"hardware is a commodity item"
Only if every man and his dog makes similar hardware to run the same software as all their competitors.
The fact is that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They stated on many occasions in the past that they wanted to usurp the position once held by Sony. I think we can all agree they've pretty much kicked Sony's corporate backside in that regard of recent times.
To elaborate further, apple are a hardware company that uses the uniqueness of their software in order to sell their hardware.
The beauty of apple products is in the user interface. Since no other manufacturer is able (for whatever reason) to match the quality of apples various user interfaces apple is able to monopolise the sales of the hardware required to obtain their "superior" interfaces. If they were to sell OSX (or indeed the iPod OS) to any Tom Dick or Harry with a commodity hardware PC then they would lose their ability to monopolise the sales of the hardware needed to obtain their superior interface.
If you don't think Jobs doesn't understand this then you're a fool.
"If I were Jobs I would spin off the hardware into a separate company."
If you were Steve Jobs then apple would now only be found in the history books alongside the likes of CBM and atari. This is exactly what the Pepsi guy tried to do in the 80's and it almost sent apple bust.
Didn't both Novell and Microsoft both admit that the OOXML converter for openoffice would not (and never will) actually do conversions with 100% fidelity?
One wonders what the point of it is.
Unisys probably outsourced their techs to india. Unisys are just another tech dinosaur that never made it out of the seventies.
Uh, I have three credit cards, use them daily and I don't live in a state of "perpetual debt" (where "debt" is defined as "paying interest on money owed") Just because you are incapable of self discipline wrt the use of credit cards it doesn't mean they are bad for everyone.
What personal rights and liberties? Dr Haneef learnt the hard way that in Australia those are tenuous at best.
Wow!
/.
I repeat, wow!
How exactly does this qualify as newsworthy?
This is almost as bad as the time some goose bought a mini mac and before the sales launch was a week old he'd gone and ripped the guts out and stuck them in a frickin' PC minitower case so he could "run a cheap server". What a dingbat.
On second thoughts, the mini mac destroyer's effort was *much* worse than this, at least there is some merit to what these guys did and they didn't go and wreck a nice piece of kit in the process. It's just not exactly newsworthy stuff, just some geeks having fun with their toys.
On the other hand, mebbe CowboyNeal just feels the need to see a whole load of incredibly amusing "imagine a beowolf cluster" and "but does it run linux" jokes. After all, it must be several minutes since the last one appeared on
Yes, I think that might be it.
Just as well we don't have women fighting in the army.
Oh wait . . . .
I think he does. If he wanted to pronounce that from now on all future versions of the kernel will be released under a different licence (be it GPL3 or MS Shared Source or any other open or closed licence) then he can do so.
What he can't do is force people to use his new versions under the new licence and he can't stop the other kernel developers from forking the kernel from the last version released under the old licence.
The Xfree86 guys learnt that lesson the hard way.
Well, I've worked in the industry since before the IBM PC. Back then, people used to build their own computers from kits and were referred to universally as "computer hackers". This was well computer networks were widely known of and hence well before computer security and the breaking thereof was considered to be an issue.
The term "hacker" has since been hi-jacked by the popular media to refer to the aforementioned "criminal activity". It was originally used to describe do-it-yourself enthusiasts.
And yes, I am that old.
Now, get the hell off my lawn.
"If you used decent speakers, even the teenybopper would go "WHOA!!!" when listening to a flac or direct-from CD . . "
Ummm, ok
" . . . (or better yet, a vinyl record)"
Oops, you were doing quite well up until then. Too bad that last bit lost you whatever credibility you might have started the post with.
When I read this article on
"SuSE, it's your Linux"
Which is pretty ironic really. I mean if it was our Linux we would never have let them deal with the devil like they did.
This ad shows that they really are concerned about the fallout from their pact with MS
I agree of course. That's why I put "believe" in italics
Umm, could you please go away?
Thanks
"You know, you could just *NOT BUY* these products that use this tactic. "
Uhh, which brand of razor/printer would you suggest genius? Where I shop, ALL the razors are pretty much the same price, and all the blades are pretty much the same inflated price. It's inevitable that once one or two manufacturers start using this lockin pricing strategy all the others have to follow as most consumers are brainless sheep who think that cheap razor + expensive blades makes for "affordable products at reasonable prices".
"Some of us don't mind it too much, since it gives us affordable products
at reasonable prices for the expected lifetime of those products."
I rest my case. Anybody who thinks that getting a cheap item as a one off purchase with ongoing consumable items at inflated prices is a good thing is clearly too stupid to be taken seriously.
"they attempt to shoehorn bits of OS X into Windows"
"Why would Apple think this braindead approach to cross-platform development would work any better for them?"
Because they believe that if they tempt users with little OSX morsels on windows it will prompt people to take a look at "the real thing"
Linspire have always targetted Windows switchers. They know full well that hardcore geeks would never use Linspire. The Linux community means nothing to them.
"In essence, the GPLv3 makes it impossible for anybody to sell blades after giving away the razor."
You know, I'm struggling to imagine why anyone would consider this to be a bad thing. I for one am sick of companies who employ this tactic. (Yes HP, Lexmark et al, I am looking at you guys) These guys should sell their products (razors, printers) at a profitable level and then compete fairly for sales of the consumables. This practice of luring consumers into buying into your locked-in brand through selling the initial item at a loss with the expectation of making it up through grossly inflated consumable pricing is disgraceful.
In the case of TiVo then they should expect to make a profit selling their boxes, and then offer an ongoing service that is attractive and competitive in the marketplace. If people don't like what TiVo offers them as far as services why shouldn't they be able to choose who/what to run on their hardware? TiVo made a profit selling them the box, they then need to work to keep their customers connected to their service.
Would you buy a Sony TV with the expectation that you could only watch Sony produced programming?
Why imagine? They've just finished accusing Google of doing exactly that.
When it is followed immediately by the words "by a woman".
When are these dyke wannabe-men going to realise that they wont be considered the equals of men until they start actually gauging their "achievements" against the standards of men
Time and time again I see the news media breathlessly reporting that some woman has set a world record in something only to discover the words "by a woman" tacked on to the end.
Ladies, didn't Annika Sorenstam teach you anything?
"Intel has multiple times paid for development on GCC. The Itanium, for example, . . . "
Good grief, intel were so desperate to get someone, anyone to write code for the Itanic that I'm not at all surprised they would help the GCC guys out. They simply couldn't wait for Itanic support to trickle through at the normal rate.
Got any better examples?
"My own pet theory for the ubiquitous cumshot is that it's an artifice used by directors who can't get their actors to evoke a convincing orgasm even when they're *actually* having one."
Naah, it's just there to give the http://www.atomfilms.com/film/stunt_ccks.jspStunt Cock something to do.