i think a lot of us are realizing that with phones playing video content much in the way podcaststing works, the ipod is going to have to innovate itself again soon or it could suddenly vanish from the marketplace, consumed by cheaper multifunction devices that are NOT from apple. i was wondering if anyone thinks this podcasting may all be ramping up to an intel ARM-based phone/pocketPC (or pocketMAC, rather)/video-capable ipod-like device, another rumored reason behind the more-complex-than-it-seems intel/apple partnership.
if i'm right, we can expect to see a super-capable, awesomely designed iDevice that finally fills in the gaps with seamless integration of your mobile needs within the next year or so.
the real question then would be: are they going to have it out in time to seize the marketplace like they did with the ipod, or is it already too late to repeat simply ue to the fact they don't have a new lifestyle to maket with it, singular to apple (seriously, i have friends whose whole life is an ipod commercial)?
i hope so much that i can get my hands on one of these soon...
i live in downtown orlando. i have taken my trusty laptop all over the downtown area several times in the past 6 months or so, and i have to say, i could never log on. never got a signal-- not the municiple wifi anyway. i know of a lot of other people who have had the same problem, so i ask: was it more of a technical issue?
keep in mind that apps written for windows will be very easy and quick to port to osxi, which means there will not only be more software for osx, including many which are currently windows only.
while this is huge for the commercial market, another large implication of osxi is that games (which typically take 9 months - 1 year to make it to osx) will also be able to be released very soon after or at the same time as the pc/xbox/playstaion versions.
as for the "knockout punch," well, who knows what apple has up it's sleeve. it doesn't seem like jobs would be so foolhardy as to do this without having considered all of these implications plus some. tactically speaking, it would have been apple's best interest to be planning either all of what everyone's speculating, or something similar, and then to let the *tantilizing* news releases trickle out for the next year, spurning so much industry hype that there's nearly no need for advertising beyond, perhaps, an aggressive campaign targeting the corporate market.
-- and perhaps a deprogramming camp for all those hard-core linux freaks who refuse to admit how osx, all aspects considered except the open-/closed-source issue, is AT LEAST (i didn't say better, so don't get in a twist) as good as linux.
i find it important to point out that while osx is no threat right now, in a year-or-so, things could (and very likely will) change.
linux's primary market is corporate deployment. licensing deals, et al, as well as os "custom fitting" are the most attractive parts of this deal (security, reliability, stability, and ease of deployment go without saying). BYO concerns don't really apply here.
now, mactels, if they start shipping cheaper as we all hope, will come out-of-the box able to run all 3 OSs, 2 of them natively (some speculate all 3 at some point). this would allow these corporate users to have a better and more reliable computer than they've ever had, the remarkable ease-of-use, power, supremely designed and integrated hardware, and application support (esp. gfx apps) that apple users have grown to love with complete cross-compatibility with linux (as well as functioning nearly the same as KDE in linux), and, if necessary, windows for additional application support-- all for close to the same price they pay for the soon-to-be obsolete single-os boxes.
another important consideration is the wide range of processor options that will be available to apple: 8 instead of 2. in the end, you have these options:
- a windows box. nobody wants that, but often they have no choice due to linux's lack of mainstream software support.
- a linux box. in the corporate context, this is currently the best option for corporations, except (typically) for where graphics development is concerned, due to lack of app support (adobe, macromedia apps, etc).
- a mactel box. running 2 or even 3 of the main OSs in use today, perhaps all 3 natively (and as some speculate, all at the same time), complete with cross-compatibility, top designed hardware intergation and support from apple, the ability to run nearly ANY application on one box, completely parallel performance (except with windows wich is always slower), unsurpassed security, consitant and easy-to-install updates, ease of transition between use of linux and osx(i) for those who don't know computers well, and hardware and software support that in completely unmatched, as well as the ease of mind that your entire computer was engineered to run perfectly by one company... i could go on, but it should be obvious that, if apple does offer competative pricing and volume licensing, the choice is clear.
btw, while you can't build your own mac, this doesn't really effect this market as it pros don't want to custom assemble 100+ boxes. with macs, as with pcs, you CAN order the parts to modify your mac, and you can install them yourself. imho, a comparable solution.
another huge complaint by everyone who has used linux (except for linux fans too proud to admit it), linux's 2 main GUIs (gnome and kde) are incredibly difficult to use. not much help is built in to the gui or even the os with regards to the functionality of the guis, and if you do manage to find it, it's poorly written, incomplete or vague, or it's written so that you need a PHd in software engineering to understand it. linux is developed by programmers, for programmers-- and herein lies that which will be their ultimate downfall. apple knew linux/unix was where it's at and fixed these problems. it's called osx.
"not a threat" is a dangerously short-sighted standpoint made by arrogant linux admins and devs. while it is, of course, a few months too early to tell how badly linux will be impacted, it's stupid to even think that it isn't a threat. if i were a linux distro, i'd be scrambling to make linux's ease-of-use match that of osx, before it can no longer afford the time or money to make those changes.
as i have found in several pseudo-tests with assorted graphics and media dev software, the only "slick" features that have any noticeable effect on a g4 1.3GHz or better is Dashboard and rapid scaling of windows and other graphics. the graphics subsystem, QuartzExtreme, replaced Quartz in 10.2.something, effectively improving graphics performance (esp related to system resource impact) by almost 90%.
then again, if your mac is slow and/or has only a small amount of ram, then i suppose you might notice performance laggs. if you're running an older ver of osx, then upgrading prolly would help.
umm, i disagree. i can't comment on the unix/osx (non)integration issue, but as far as the GUI is concerned, from 10.3 "panther" and beyond, most of the GUI complains you make are incorrect-- and i've only been regularly using and owning macs for the last 2 years, and you say you have 14 years' experience?
1. windows miniturized to the dock always have a little icon in the corner of the parent program, even if it is a finder window. i believe this was in puma and jaguar, and i know it's in panther and tiger.
2. when you change the window options, they DO retain their setting, in fact, much better than in winxp. they remember last size, last position, background color/image, icon size, sorting options, etc. you can either set it to "All Windows" or "This Window". this has been a part of osx since 10.2 "jaguar" at least.
3. i don't know what you mean by "counterintuitive", but i believe you have your head up your ass. when i first used osx, i was a highly experienced windows user and beta tester. immediately i was taken aback when i saw how remarkably well everything was orgainzed, laid out, interconnected, and, most notably, well designed, simple, and highly functional and reliable. everything is where it should be (99% of the time compared to the -244% in any M$ app), and does what it says it does. it does it well, powerfully, and works very simmply and in plain language with tons of help and support. help and support in linux/unix involves going to a command prompt and having to memorize many key sequences to operate the text-only interface. when you need help (esp. when you're a computer idiot and are freaking out at some new dialog box), the last thing you need to have to do is go through a bunch of complicated steps in a command-line in order to get the horribly written (and often non-existant) help files. and hello? we live in the 21-st centrury, and we have GUIs. wake up and live in the now. and if you say that there's some things you can't do in the GUI, that's because the UBER-geeks (no disrespect) who dev linux don't give a shit about usability for the novice or intermediate user.
so, yeah, you're wrong. really wrong. not only that, but about 5 years out-of-date (like your software). and when you complain about software, do it in the right year/decade/millenium.
i'd have to say, as a designer, Quark seriously dropped the ball by not releasing quark 6 (well, without retracting the release, that is) before InDesign came out. once InDesign got a foothold on the market, a lot of quark die-hards began to understand that quark is difficult to use for no particualr reason. for those interested in workflow optimization, indesign is the better choice. it's far more stable, and there's been much more development behind it than quark.
like i said, quark dropped the ball, and now they're suffering the consequences.
if, as we've all had hammered into our head, a terrorist's main goal is to destroy american freedoms and the american way of life, doesn't that make our own government the biggest and worst terrorist threat to america?
4. constantly developing cutting-edge technologies in Google Labs 5. providing a majority of services for free 6. only charges *nominal* fees for pay services 7. AWESOME customer support 8. (and my favoriite) DOES NOT make a huge income from selling your information to as many others as possible
but didn't the article say they were just checking for corporate data? i mean sure, they will be seeing everything, and an indescreet reader could be any writer's problem, but as has been mentioned before, why would you send personal data via work email?
people are, of course, concerned about privacy. now i am one of those people, ecrypting everything i can, often without cause. but if it's stated that they're hiring people to take care of this, doesn't that mean that A) they have to pay these teams of people, and B) that no company wants to waste money on impractical persuits such as hashing out personal affairs outside the scope of their security efforts?
and anther thing? why the hooplah? companies have been reading employee's email since it was possible to do so. sure, more companies do it now than then simply because A) it's easier B) companies are more aware of security threats such as email leaking of sensetive info, and C) more companies provide email for their employees than ever before.
if this were a new trend, then i'd be right there insisting that the pervue of the investigation be strictly limited to the interception of sensetive info. however, legalistally (in the usa), corporate interests will always outweigh the rights of the individual (because companies have lots of money to buy our "elected" officials, and individuals do not).
so quit pitching a fit. you missed the time to object.
just use common sense. if you want your email to remain private, don't use a medium over which you have no legal claim in the case of its interception and/or misuse. especially if you're emailing trade secrets to your whole address book!
btw, and i'm not sure about this, but if you encrypt an email sent from work that becomes "suspect" in an investigation, wouldn't a subpeona *force* you to provide the key?
as personal computing technology gets smaller and more powerful at the same time, wouldn't it be the eventual goal of any personal comuting venture to be able to produce a product that could accomplish all that a desktop computer while being as smalll and portable as possible?
if this trend continues, more will be computerized and it will be done more cheaply. awesome!
is it me, or is this representative of this terrible marketing trend to get geeks to spend enormous amounts of money on their toys? i mean, these companies know if it has buttons and does something cool we goota have it. a lot of geeks don't always think of practicalities.
the fact of the matter is crts are still better than LCDs for a lot of reasons, namely price. sure there's downsides to everything (like no widescreen crts). for someone who's so concerned about productivity, should practicality and pricing (as well as quality of prduct) be just as big a consideration?
a modded case is one thing, but this is just rediculous. seriously.
why don't these people (i'm talking about the extreme ones who make tie fighter computer cases/desks) do something more useful with their time, like make innovative a cool products -- something everyone could benefit from?
well, i have a pc and a mac. what does that make me? a gay hippie? i can handle being called a homo, but no one calls me a dirty hippie and gets away with it!
read the post, dummy! it say that the game console companies HEAVILY SUBSIDIZE the cost of such components when they put out a console, hoping to make the money back on game sales.
you can bet this is going to be just another excuse to justify more draconian "copyright" laws that will undoubtedly infringe on the rights of americans.
to fight those who would destroy American freedom, we Americans must remain FREE ourselves, for to do otherwise would be to FURTHER the cause of our enemies. yet, those very politicians who claim to fight for our protection are doing so at the COST of OUR freedoms. with these politicians left unchecked, "live free or die" will soon no longer be our choices. soon, it will be just "live or die." it seems to me that our enemies are winning without lifting a finger; OUR government is doing it FOR them.
with ununified package delivery systems, and a myriad of other nightmarish necessities in linux (which, in my opinion are oly still around cuz being able to deal with them makes linux geeks feel special), OSX is the only way to go. sure, i'd put linux on my pc (and have several times), but the damned OS PUNISHES you for trying to install a driver, a program, or GOD FORBID, to uninstall anything. OSX has all of this under control. that is what makes it better than any linux distro right now.
if these distros became easier to use (why hasn't it been done yet???), then there would be no more discussions of windows vs. linux. the choice would be clear.
it comes down to this: if i have to run a couple 3-rd party apps to keep the ad/spyware away and viruses at bay, then i'd rather do that than have to be banished to command line hell to do anything from install a program, change a teeny little setting, or to run updates on my apps. f*ck linux and the horse it rode in on. pwer and ability aren't the only things that make an os great. without great usability (like osx), it's just garbage that gets in people's way.
yeah, i've had a brain injury in the prefrontal region of my brain from a near-drowning accident as a kid... i thought i just "didn't get it". very frustrating not always being able to tell when people are beign serious or not(there's not always enough contextual clues to be certain), i must say, but if there's an actual reason i don't get it as easily (i do get it eventually, but it's more difficult than for most, it seems), then that answers that.
fyi, firefox does not come from netscape source. they are both based on code from the mozilla foundation's code which develops (netscape switched from their code base to mozilla code base when they bought mozilla few years ago). this is reflected in that every release of netscape is the previous release version of mozilla. firefox is just a streamlined web browser derived from mozilla as well, but it is an independant project not under the pervue of time-warner.
as for winamp, netscape, and mozilla, they were all independant corporations at one point that time warner bought up to try to keep aol afloat. at least they got mozilla and winamp, which properly developed, could be even better than they are now, especially if not hindered byt the stigma and limited usership of aol and it's proprietary nature.
aim is their only original service, but that might not even be true.
it's not even so much that opera costs money (which is enough for me to ignore it), but the free version has ADWARE in it. adware. f*ck them! a trial version or something, but not adware. that's just sh*tty.
could this represent a fundamental shift of information away from the educated and priveledged to the masses via the internet and other electronic media?
i mean, i know that's what's been happening with it, but when it comes to the point where there are serious social ramifications, shouldn't analyze this further for lasting social effects before just "going for it"? or should we, on the other hand, just embrace the change and see what happens?
Slashdot Mirror
i think a lot of us are realizing that with phones playing video content much in the way podcaststing works, the ipod is going to have to innovate itself again soon or it could suddenly vanish from the marketplace, consumed by cheaper multifunction devices that are NOT from apple. i was wondering if anyone thinks this podcasting may all be ramping up to an intel ARM-based phone/pocketPC (or pocketMAC, rather)/video-capable ipod-like device, another rumored reason behind the more-complex-than-it-seems intel/apple partnership. if i'm right, we can expect to see a super-capable, awesomely designed iDevice that finally fills in the gaps with seamless integration of your mobile needs within the next year or so. the real question then would be: are they going to have it out in time to seize the marketplace like they did with the ipod, or is it already too late to repeat simply ue to the fact they don't have a new lifestyle to maket with it, singular to apple (seriously, i have friends whose whole life is an ipod commercial)? i hope so much that i can get my hands on one of these soon...
i live in downtown orlando. i have taken my trusty laptop all over the downtown area several times in the past 6 months or so, and i have to say, i could never log on. never got a signal-- not the municiple wifi anyway. i know of a lot of other people who have had the same problem, so i ask: was it more of a technical issue?
keep in mind that apps written for windows will be very easy and quick to port to osxi, which means there will not only be more software for osx, including many which are currently windows only.
while this is huge for the commercial market, another large implication of osxi is that games (which typically take 9 months - 1 year to make it to osx) will also be able to be released very soon after or at the same time as the pc/xbox/playstaion versions.
as for the "knockout punch," well, who knows what apple has up it's sleeve. it doesn't seem like jobs would be so foolhardy as to do this without having considered all of these implications plus some. tactically speaking, it would have been apple's best interest to be planning either all of what everyone's speculating, or something similar, and then to let the *tantilizing* news releases trickle out for the next year, spurning so much industry hype that there's nearly no need for advertising beyond, perhaps, an aggressive campaign targeting the corporate market.
-- and perhaps a deprogramming camp for all those hard-core linux freaks who refuse to admit how osx, all aspects considered except the open-/closed-source issue, is AT LEAST (i didn't say better, so don't get in a twist) as good as linux.
i find it important to point out that while osx is no threat right now, in a year-or-so, things could (and very likely will) change.
linux's primary market is corporate deployment. licensing deals, et al, as well as os "custom fitting" are the most attractive parts of this deal (security, reliability, stability, and ease of deployment go without saying). BYO concerns don't really apply here.
now, mactels, if they start shipping cheaper as we all hope, will come out-of-the box able to run all 3 OSs, 2 of them natively (some speculate all 3 at some point). this would allow these corporate users to have a better and more reliable computer than they've ever had, the remarkable ease-of-use, power, supremely designed and integrated hardware, and application support (esp. gfx apps) that apple users have grown to love with complete cross-compatibility with linux (as well as functioning nearly the same as KDE in linux), and, if necessary, windows for additional application support-- all for close to the same price they pay for the soon-to-be obsolete single-os boxes.
another important consideration is the wide range of processor options that will be available to apple: 8 instead of 2. in the end, you have these options:
- a windows box. nobody wants that, but often they have no choice due to linux's lack of mainstream software support.
- a linux box. in the corporate context, this is currently the best option for corporations, except (typically) for where graphics development is concerned, due to lack of app support (adobe, macromedia apps, etc).
- a mactel box. running 2 or even 3 of the main OSs in use today, perhaps all 3 natively (and as some speculate, all at the same time), complete with cross-compatibility, top designed hardware intergation and support from apple, the ability to run nearly ANY application on one box, completely parallel performance (except with windows wich is always slower), unsurpassed security, consitant and easy-to-install updates, ease of transition between use of linux and osx(i) for those who don't know computers well, and hardware and software support that in completely unmatched, as well as the ease of mind that your entire computer was engineered to run perfectly by one company... i could go on, but it should be obvious that, if apple does offer competative pricing and volume licensing, the choice is clear.
btw, while you can't build your own mac, this doesn't really effect this market as it pros don't want to custom assemble 100+ boxes. with macs, as with pcs, you CAN order the parts to modify your mac, and you can install them yourself. imho, a comparable solution.
another huge complaint by everyone who has used linux (except for linux fans too proud to admit it), linux's 2 main GUIs (gnome and kde) are incredibly difficult to use. not much help is built in to the gui or even the os with regards to the functionality of the guis, and if you do manage to find it, it's poorly written, incomplete or vague, or it's written so that you need a PHd in software engineering to understand it. linux is developed by programmers, for programmers-- and herein lies that which will be their ultimate downfall. apple knew linux/unix was where it's at and fixed these problems. it's called osx.
"not a threat" is a dangerously short-sighted standpoint made by arrogant linux admins and devs. while it is, of course, a few months too early to tell how badly linux will be impacted, it's stupid to even think that it isn't a threat. if i were a linux distro, i'd be scrambling to make linux's ease-of-use match that of osx, before it can no longer afford the time or money to make those changes.
as i have found in several pseudo-tests with assorted graphics and media dev software, the only "slick" features that have any noticeable effect on a g4 1.3GHz or better is Dashboard and rapid scaling of windows and other graphics. the graphics subsystem, QuartzExtreme, replaced Quartz in 10.2.something, effectively improving graphics performance (esp related to system resource impact) by almost 90%.
then again, if your mac is slow and/or has only a small amount of ram, then i suppose you might notice performance laggs. if you're running an older ver of osx, then upgrading prolly would help.
apple has stated that they will lock osxi to their proprietary hardware.
umm, i disagree. i can't comment on the unix/osx (non)integration issue, but as far as the GUI is concerned, from 10.3 "panther" and beyond, most of the GUI complains you make are incorrect-- and i've only been regularly using and owning macs for the last 2 years, and you say you have 14 years' experience?
1. windows miniturized to the dock always have a little icon in the corner of the parent program, even if it is a finder window. i believe this was in puma and jaguar, and i know it's in panther and tiger.
2. when you change the window options, they DO retain their setting, in fact, much better than in winxp. they remember last size, last position, background color/image, icon size, sorting options, etc. you can either set it to "All Windows" or "This Window". this has been a part of osx since 10.2 "jaguar" at least.
3. i don't know what you mean by "counterintuitive", but i believe you have your head up your ass. when i first used osx, i was a highly experienced windows user and beta tester. immediately i was taken aback when i saw how remarkably well everything was orgainzed, laid out, interconnected, and, most notably, well designed, simple, and highly functional and reliable. everything is where it should be (99% of the time compared to the -244% in any M$ app), and does what it says it does. it does it well, powerfully, and works very simmply and in plain language with tons of help and support. help and support in linux/unix involves going to a command prompt and having to memorize many key sequences to operate the text-only interface. when you need help (esp. when you're a computer idiot and are freaking out at some new dialog box), the last thing you need to have to do is go through a bunch of complicated steps in a command-line in order to get the horribly written (and often non-existant) help files. and hello? we live in the 21-st centrury, and we have GUIs. wake up and live in the now. and if you say that there's some things you can't do in the GUI, that's because the UBER-geeks (no disrespect) who dev linux don't give a shit about usability for the novice or intermediate user.
so, yeah, you're wrong. really wrong. not only that, but about 5 years out-of-date (like your software). and when you complain about software, do it in the right year/decade/millenium.
dumbass.
i'd have to say, as a designer, Quark seriously dropped the ball by not releasing quark 6 (well, without retracting the release, that is) before InDesign came out. once InDesign got a foothold on the market, a lot of quark die-hards began to understand that quark is difficult to use for no particualr reason. for those interested in workflow optimization, indesign is the better choice. it's far more stable, and there's been much more development behind it than quark. like i said, quark dropped the ball, and now they're suffering the consequences.
if, as we've all had hammered into our head, a terrorist's main goal is to destroy american freedoms and the american way of life, doesn't that make our own government the biggest and worst terrorist threat to america?
let's not forget...
4. constantly developing cutting-edge technologies in Google Labs
5. providing a majority of services for free
6. only charges *nominal* fees for pay services
7. AWESOME customer support
8. (and my favoriite) DOES NOT make a huge income from selling your information to as many others as possible
but didn't the article say they were just checking for corporate data? i mean sure, they will be seeing everything, and an indescreet reader could be any writer's problem, but as has been mentioned before, why would you send personal data via work email?
people are, of course, concerned about privacy. now i am one of those people, ecrypting everything i can, often without cause. but if it's stated that they're hiring people to take care of this, doesn't that mean that A) they have to pay these teams of people, and B) that no company wants to waste money on impractical persuits such as hashing out personal affairs outside the scope of their security efforts?
and anther thing? why the hooplah? companies have been reading employee's email since it was possible to do so. sure, more companies do it now than then simply because A) it's easier B) companies are more aware of security threats such as email leaking of sensetive info, and C) more companies provide email for their employees than ever before.
if this were a new trend, then i'd be right there insisting that the pervue of the investigation be strictly limited to the interception of sensetive info. however, legalistally (in the usa), corporate interests will always outweigh the rights of the individual (because companies have lots of money to buy our "elected" officials, and individuals do not).
so quit pitching a fit. you missed the time to object.
just use common sense. if you want your email to remain private, don't use a medium over which you have no legal claim in the case of its interception and/or misuse. especially if you're emailing trade secrets to your whole address book!
btw, and i'm not sure about this, but if you encrypt an email sent from work that becomes "suspect" in an investigation, wouldn't a subpeona *force* you to provide the key?
as personal computing technology gets smaller and more powerful at the same time, wouldn't it be the eventual goal of any personal comuting venture to be able to produce a product that could accomplish all that a desktop computer while being as smalll and portable as possible?
if this trend continues, more will be computerized and it will be done more cheaply. awesome!
is it me, or is this representative of this terrible marketing trend to get geeks to spend enormous amounts of money on their toys? i mean, these companies know if it has buttons and does something cool we goota have it. a lot of geeks don't always think of practicalities.
the fact of the matter is crts are still better than LCDs for a lot of reasons, namely price. sure there's downsides to everything (like no widescreen crts). for someone who's so concerned about productivity, should practicality and pricing (as well as quality of prduct) be just as big a consideration?
eh... fair enough...
a modded case is one thing, but this is just rediculous. seriously.
why don't these people (i'm talking about the extreme ones who make tie fighter computer cases/desks) do something more useful with their time, like make innovative a cool products -- something everyone could benefit from?
what a waste.
well, i have a pc and a mac. what does that make me? a gay hippie? i can handle being called a homo, but no one calls me a dirty hippie and gets away with it!
read the post, dummy! it say that the game console companies HEAVILY SUBSIDIZE the cost of such components when they put out a console, hoping to make the money back on game sales.
what about that do you not understand?
you can bet this is going to be just another excuse to justify more draconian "copyright" laws that will undoubtedly infringe on the rights of americans. to fight those who would destroy American freedom, we Americans must remain FREE ourselves, for to do otherwise would be to FURTHER the cause of our enemies. yet, those very politicians who claim to fight for our protection are doing so at the COST of OUR freedoms. with these politicians left unchecked, "live free or die" will soon no longer be our choices. soon, it will be just "live or die." it seems to me that our enemies are winning without lifting a finger; OUR government is doing it FOR them.
with ununified package delivery systems, and a myriad of other nightmarish necessities in linux (which, in my opinion are oly still around cuz being able to deal with them makes linux geeks feel special), OSX is the only way to go. sure, i'd put linux on my pc (and have several times), but the damned OS PUNISHES you for trying to install a driver, a program, or GOD FORBID, to uninstall anything. OSX has all of this under control. that is what makes it better than any linux distro right now.
if these distros became easier to use (why hasn't it been done yet???), then there would be no more discussions of windows vs. linux. the choice would be clear.
it comes down to this: if i have to run a couple 3-rd party apps to keep the ad/spyware away and viruses at bay, then i'd rather do that than have to be banished to command line hell to do anything from install a program, change a teeny little setting, or to run updates on my apps. f*ck linux and the horse it rode in on. pwer and ability aren't the only things that make an os great. without great usability (like osx), it's just garbage that gets in people's way.
yeah, i've had a brain injury in the prefrontal region of my brain from a near-drowning accident as a kid... i thought i just "didn't get it". very frustrating not always being able to tell when people are beign serious or not(there's not always enough contextual clues to be certain), i must say, but if there's an actual reason i don't get it as easily (i do get it eventually, but it's more difficult than for most, it seems), then that answers that.
kinda sucks, though.
oh. i see... thanks for the correction. so, where does that put firefox?
fyi, firefox does not come from netscape source. they are both based on code from the mozilla foundation's code which develops (netscape switched from their code base to mozilla code base when they bought mozilla few years ago). this is reflected in that every release of netscape is the previous release version of mozilla. firefox is just a streamlined web browser derived from mozilla as well, but it is an independant project not under the pervue of time-warner.
as for winamp, netscape, and mozilla, they were all independant corporations at one point that time warner bought up to try to keep aol afloat. at least they got mozilla and winamp, which properly developed, could be even better than they are now, especially if not hindered byt the stigma and limited usership of aol and it's proprietary nature.
aim is their only original service, but that might not even be true.
winam
it's got ads embedded in it. adware. i didn't say spyware, although it's directed text ad optiion brings it close.
and for what? a couple of features that are mostly or all available through firefox plugins for FREE. this crap sucks.
get your shit straight.
it's not even so much that opera costs money (which is enough for me to ignore it), but the free version has ADWARE in it. adware. f*ck them! a trial version or something, but not adware. that's just sh*tty.
could this represent a fundamental shift of information away from the educated and priveledged to the masses via the internet and other electronic media?
i mean, i know that's what's been happening with it, but when it comes to the point where there are serious social ramifications, shouldn't analyze this further for lasting social effects before just "going for it"? or should we, on the other hand, just embrace the change and see what happens?