Richard Stallman, president of the FSF and founder of the GNU project, who wrote GNU Emacs, Gdb and is the principal gcc author. You'll find his homepage at http://www.stallman.org.
Savant
This bit of his.sig has bugged me for a while; what ESR actually said in the/. interview was:
"I'm not going to minimize my attachments by giving it all away, though, so you evangelists for a zillion worthy causes can just calm down out there and forget about hitting me up for megabucks. I am *not* going to be a soft touch, and will rudely refuse all importunities.
I'm not copping this harsh attitude to protect my money, but rather to protect the far more precious asset of my time. Because I don't want to have to become a full-time specialist in deciding whose urgent pitch to buy, I'm going to turn everybody down flat in advance. Anyone who bugs me for a handout, no matter how noble the cause and how much I agree with it, will go on my permanent shit list. If I want to give or lend or invest money, *I'll* call *you*. (Sigh...)And yes, there are causes I'll give money to. Worthy hacker projects. Free-speech activism. Firearms-rights campaigns. Tibet, maybe. I might buy a hunk of rainforest for conservation somewhere. Megabucks are power, and with power comes an obligation to use it wisely. I'll give carefully, and in my own time, and only after doing my homework -- too much charity often kills what it means to nurture. And enough about that."
Doesn't sound much like 'saying no' to me. In any case, he's locked into the 6-month after IPO thing and can't sell till its up anyway.
More beneficial for games possibly, but voxels tend to be used for some rather important stuff like medical imaging. Nurbs, like polygons, only represent the surface and not the interior. If we were talking 2D instead of 3D, your claim would become that accelerated spline drawing for vector graphics would be 'more beneficial' than accelerated raster graphics. I'd disagree - to me voxel rendering is a much more radical step than accelerated Nurbs, and voxels have a host of advantages that Nurbs don't; try comparing polygon-based morphing with voxel-based morphing. Polygon-based morphing has real difficulty with topological changes such as torus / sphere morphs, which voxels handle easily, and few advantages over voxel morphing methods, while voxels seem to have a considerable edge for purposes of medical imaging, etc.
>'Complex, configurable' interfaces place an unreasonable burden on the user. It's the developer who should have to worry about making >the UI efficient--not the user. This is the standard we hold non-computer products to. We don't expect auto makers to let us replace the >steering wheel with a joystick--using one would be another skill we'd have to master, when we could simply be driving. Another example-- >kitchen appliances. The 16 speed blenders of 25 years ago have predominantly given way to models which turn on and off. Why? Because >the added complexity--in the name of configurability--was unneccesary, useless, and in the end, unwelcome.
Hmmm. I think you need to read Neal Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line right through. To begin with, your steering-wheel / joystick analogy is broken. For most kids in the modern day, the joystick is an interface they are familiar with long before they are of age to drive a car; by your reasoning the joystick - or using Stephenson's analysis, a GUI - would be a better choice in cars designed for people used to these interfaces. That is categorically wrong, as Stephenson shows... A favourite paragraph:
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them. In order to understand how bizarre this is, imagine that book reviews were written according to the same values system that we apply to user interfaces: "The writing in this book is marvelously simple-minded and glib; the author glosses over complicated subjects and employs facile generalizations in almost every sentence. Readers rarely have to think, and are spared all of the difficulty and tedium typically involved in reading old-fashioned books."
I could say a lot more on the whole GUI topic, but it's been said before and better by authors like Stephenson. Read the essay, and see if you agree with me or not. Savant
Visual Studio, as IDEs go, is not altogether bad. Certainly a Windows coder hooked on some of its snazzier features will feel a bit disappointed when moving to Linux to develop. IntelliSense and relatively advanced debugging tools give Windows a big advantage in certain areas.
Nonetheless, all my memories of developing using Visual Studio are horrible. This is because the actual Windows API is pretty ugly, and MFC... lets not even go there. Raw X programming is pretty nasty too, but using the Qt and GNOME toolkits development is much much easier than when using Windows, whereas the low-level stuff is just the way it should be.
Besides, I'm often working with a large number of quite small code files, spread over multiple desktops; and I prefer nedit as a text editor to Visual Studio anyway; it's a bonus that it's lighter weight. Microsoft documentation is to my mind inferior to much of the core Linux documentation, though YMMV.
I know that it is possible to get multiple virtual desktops for Windows (if you pay a fee) and nedit is probably also available. Qt is available for Windows, but you have to pay handsomely for the privilege. But Linux is well-nigh impossible to crash, and the command line beats any file manager into the ground. It's a totally different approach to development, and yes, there are disadvantages, but the sheer sweetness of the Linux APIs makes developing a pleasure, especially when you are convinced that the Un*x model is The One True Way to build an operating system.
As far as I recall under Windows 95, there are two buttons on the login screen: OK and Cancel. Cancel gets you into the system; indeed if you click OK several times failing each and then Cancel you get the desktop as it is set up for the user you've 'logged in' as.
Maybe this guy was very bright; but when faced with only 2 buttons, not to try both seems to suggest a lack of the inquiring mind that I've always felt intelligent folk should have...
As the long flame war draws to its close, it's becoming pretty evident that releasing the source as GPL and relicensing it for commercial use would fit what Peter Molyneux has said, be as open source as open source could be and lay to rest the doubters. Even if this is not the solution that he thought of, there is no reason to scream "BUT IT'S NOT OPEN SOURCE" without knowing more of the details.
One question about this scenario though: can you relicense code you maintain and have written 95% of - which is GPL code - under a commercial licence? If not, the biggest plus of being open source for Bullfrog is gone (assuming they care about cash more than cool code, which may be a false assumption), as the bug fixes they might have made themselves with careful inspection are now locked into GPL mode, and although their game is patched on the cheap, they cannot resell patched code. If so, then where is the line drawn between source you can rerelease and source you can't?
Now the issue that concerns me more. Open sourcing the code implies that the code could be passed around in a way likely to give a games company that dislikes piracy the shivers (legal copying of binaries anyone?). Now there are 2 solutions I see to this. 1) The Descent solution - release code not artwork; risk someone redoing the artwork themselves (or 'close' the licence a bit by specifying original artwork only? Smells bad to me). 2) 'Close' the licence to prevent binary distribution altogether, make everyone compile their own copy. This is not GPL open source, but the only valid copyists of your game are now the development market you were happy to open your source to, and you engender tremendous developer community goodwill, so most of them will probably buy a copy of the game anyway. IMHO this is optimum for the interests of everyone concerned, although I'd be interested to hear others' comments.
Anyway, more power to Peter Molyneux's elbow; it's a grand gesture from a games company and quibbling would be churlish. If his ideas come to pass, I vote we make up some kind of./ award for him.
Sorry for any typos, lack of care in formatting, sloppy thoughts, etc; its late where I am.
One tiny point here - as far as I understand it, GNUCash is personal finance software only. I would dearly love it if it were a business-level accounting package; this is the main Linux flaw which leaves my father running under NT.
Does anyone know of any attempts to build an industrial-strength accounting package for Linux? Is this a final goal for GNUCash?
Memory problems under NT are seldom hardware. Developing under NT and Linux I find that code which seg-faults under Linux often runs under NT. NT frequently allows code to access at least some memory it hasn't allocated. Needless to say, this leads to memory problems. This also, IMHO, shows the claim that "it is NT applications which cause the trouble, not NT itself", in a different light, as, although this is partly true, Linux wouldn't give the applications enough slack to cause the same number of memory leaks.
Hello? Ranked 5 for reproducing the text at the far end of the link? I can't see how this comment would be informative to anyone who actually had read the linked article (and hence seen the table of contents) - shouldn't marking comments up on information content be kept for ppl who introduce supplementary useful information rather than regurgitating the original article?
Try looking at CoSource. I've been able to develop GPLed code and be paid for it (well, actually I think the check is still in the post, as I haven't got it yet, but I digress). There's quite a bit of cash floating about and CoSource has a few ideas on how to make cash from software you are already developing, so I'd urge you to take a look.
Another avenue is sourceXchange, who cater for the corporate taste; but you will have to convince a reasonably sized company to sponsor you.
We have come a long way in the last few years. The inspirational guidance of Our Immortal Leader has brought us to a peak of development unparalleled in human history. Surely our adoration of Him is right and just, for He is responsible for our present utopia.
Nonetheless, it grieves me to say that some dissidents, enemies of our state, have been spreading poisonous seditions, saying that our fine country is no longer what it once was - false lies that Our Immortal Leader has authorised me to put straight.
The first allegation to deal with is that Oceania is a recent amalgamation of four ancient countries, called 'America', 'Canada', 'Great Britain' and 'The Republic of Ireland'. It is further alleged that the moon landings of 1969 were not carried out by our fair Oceania, but by this fictional 'America'. We have decided to release to you the people the video of that glorious happening. Note as you watch the video the Oceania flag flying proudly over the duned surface of the Moon; note the insignia on our brave astronauts uniforms and on the landing craft. See also the footage of Our Immortal Leader greeting the astronauts on their return, and decorating them with the Cross of Oceania.
Citizens, beware of these seditionists! They allege further that the colonisation of the surface is a myth, that we are no nearer to returning there than a decade ago; but this video will help convince you, citizens, that they lie; see Our Immortal Leader viewing the fields full of crops and giving His blessing to the workers. See also the fine houses we build on the surface; and we promise you citizens that your efforts are not in vain; when you reach the age of retirement you too can live there, in these paradisaic and blissful surroundings. Those who have already retired are waiting there for you to join them, so do not believe the rebels' self-seeking lies. We encourage all approaching retirement age to approach their local Commissioner and get him to sign their passes to the Colonised Surface.
Citizens, I thank you for your patient hearing of my address. As always, in the name of Our Immortal Leader,
There has been a movement in AI for a few years now called 'behaviourism', which started with a paper by Rodney Brooks advocating the building of robotic insects with simple 'behaviours' which interacted with each other to produce an apparent limited intelligence which could cope with the real world. Just thinking that the possibilities for building apparent intelligence into swarms of such robots - a 'hive mind' if you like - must be considerable. You wouldn't need super processing power in each robot if you could achieve good results through their interaction, but could churn out intelligent and semi-autonomous swarms with the 'mind' being apparent only when the dust is together.
Isn't there a possible pitfall in all this? Suppose you have A. Random Slashdotter and B. Random Slashdotter both reading a thread. A reads a post that is slightly off-topic, but finds it interesting. B reads the same post, finds it off-topic and doesn't find it interesting.
You're probably ahead of me here. But I'll spell it out. If A is moderating and B meta-moderating, A loses karma because his (valid) view does not coincide with B's. If B moderates and A meta-moderates, the situation is reversed.
Now I'm not sure this is a desirable situation; anyone else have any thoughts?
On the contrary: there are many kinds of software of nature only a little more specialised than your word processors and ftp clients that are not available on the Mac or Linux. Linux has no serious mid-end business accountancy software, for example. Such software is vital to the continued operation of many small businesses.
I did not "point out that [a nannying user interface] was exactly what my non-geek friends want", and indeed I'm not sure how you got that impression - I said that they were more interested in cheapness and compatibility. And although game development is having a resurgence on the Mac, it is still miles behind the Windows PC.
As to the developing for Linux thing, both Qt and GTK can be persuaded to port to Windows, and hence as one aiming first for Linux then Windows I can hardly be called a Mac developer whether my stuff can be ported to Mac or not.
I for one do not believe that Apple will suddenly become a major player in the PC market with the release of the G4. Like Linux, they lag behind Windows as to number of applications and games available; unlike Linux, there is no industry movement to close that gap. As a developer I would prefer to work on Linux - where my heart lies - or Windows - where there is money to be made - than trying to cater for the Apple niche market. I suspect most developers will feel similiarly.
As Katz said, "For years, no self-respecting geek would be caught dead on a Mac." Why? Because they are about abstraction, hiding details of how the machine works away from the end user. And this does not attract developers in the same way as artists. For the developer, the Mac hardware is quite cool; the MacOS with its nannying user interface is not. And thus Borland's poll, when it asked about platforms people were interested in developing on, showed that there was little enthusiasm to develop for the Mac, the iMac's hype notwithstanding.
Why is this important? For one reason: the life of an OS depends on developers and applications. That is why the Windows PC now dominates the desktop; it has more applications to its name than any other platform. That is why Linux is a rising force; it has captured the imagination of developers, and they have put blood, sweat and tears towards its advancement. The Mac does not attract developers by nature, and it has not the momentum that gives Windows its edge.
"It is cool", Katz says. To whom? To my friends who know nothing of computers, 'coolness' is not an issue. They want something that meets their simple requirements; they want it to be cheap; they want it to be compatible with everyone else. Those who have computers but are not geeks get hacked off by system crashes more than by PC user-friendliness. They often listen eagerly as I tell them of the rise and rise of an OS that hardly ever crashes. Those who are geeks would not touch the MacOS with a barge-pole. Gadget freaks who aren't computer-literate enough to have chosen Windows or Linux are the only market left.
Coincidentally, this is the same market as computer games reach. And the Mac is weak here compared to the PC. The Mac may look cooler; the PC's games ARE cooler, at least in their eyes. And so the Mac loses even here.
I would like to question what Katz sees as the 'Apple Age', too. If it existed, it existed only for that relatively small group of computer users who used Macs; many of these have now left the platform. What would make for a second such age? The return of old users? The gain of new users? I can't see so many new users coming to the Mac that it would become a major force.
Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman, president of the FSF and founder of the GNU project, who wrote GNU Emacs, Gdb and is the principal gcc author. You'll find his homepage at http://www.stallman.org.
Savant
This bit of his .sig has bugged me for a while; what ESR actually said in the /. interview was:
"I'm not going to minimize my attachments by giving it all away, though, so you evangelists for a zillion worthy causes can just calm down out there and forget about hitting me up for megabucks. I am *not* going to be a soft touch, and will rudely refuse all importunities.
I'm not copping this harsh attitude to protect my money, but rather to protect the far more precious asset of my time. Because I don't want to have to become a full-time specialist in deciding whose urgent pitch to buy, I'm going to turn everybody down flat in advance. Anyone who bugs me for a handout, no matter how noble the cause and how much I agree with it, will go on my permanent shit list. If I want to give or lend or invest money, *I'll* call *you*. (Sigh...)And yes, there are causes I'll give money to. Worthy hacker projects. Free-speech activism. Firearms-rights campaigns. Tibet, maybe. I might buy a hunk of rainforest for conservation somewhere. Megabucks are power, and with power comes an obligation to use it wisely. I'll give carefully, and in my own time, and only after doing my homework -- too much charity often kills what it means to nurture. And enough about that."
Doesn't sound much like 'saying no' to me. In any case, he's locked into the 6-month after IPO thing and can't sell till its up anyway.
Savant
More beneficial for games possibly, but voxels tend to be used for some rather important stuff like medical imaging. Nurbs, like polygons, only represent the surface and not the interior. If we were talking 2D instead of 3D, your claim would become that accelerated spline drawing for vector graphics would be 'more beneficial' than accelerated raster graphics. I'd disagree - to me voxel rendering is a much more radical step than accelerated Nurbs, and voxels have a host of advantages that Nurbs don't; try comparing polygon-based morphing with voxel-based morphing. Polygon-based morphing has real difficulty with topological changes such as torus / sphere morphs, which voxels handle easily, and few advantages over voxel morphing methods, while voxels seem to have a considerable edge for purposes of medical imaging, etc.
Savant
Someone moderate this up... it deserves to be at least as high as the post it is in reply to, which was naive at best.
Savant
>'Complex, configurable' interfaces place an unreasonable burden on the user. It's the developer who should have to worry about making
>the UI efficient--not the user. This is the standard we hold non-computer products to. We don't expect auto makers to let us replace the
>steering wheel with a joystick--using one would be another skill we'd have to master, when we could simply be driving. Another example--
>kitchen appliances. The 16 speed blenders of 25 years ago have predominantly given way to models which turn on and off. Why? Because
>the added complexity--in the name of configurability--was unneccesary, useless, and in the end, unwelcome.
Hmmm. I think you need to read Neal Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line right through. To begin with, your steering-wheel / joystick analogy is broken. For most kids in the modern day, the joystick is an interface they are familiar with long before they are of age to drive a car; by your reasoning the joystick - or using Stephenson's analysis, a GUI - would be a better choice in cars designed for people used to these interfaces. That is categorically wrong, as Stephenson shows...
A favourite paragraph:
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them. In order to understand how bizarre this is, imagine that book reviews were written according to the same values system that we apply to user interfaces: "The writing in this book is marvelously simple-minded and glib; the author glosses over complicated subjects and employs facile generalizations in almost every sentence. Readers rarely have to think, and are spared all of the difficulty and tedium typically involved in reading old-fashioned books."
I could say a lot more on the whole GUI topic, but it's been said before and better by authors like Stephenson. Read the essay, and see if you agree with me or not. Savant
Visual Studio, as IDEs go, is not altogether bad. Certainly a Windows coder hooked on some of its snazzier features will feel a bit disappointed when moving to Linux to develop. IntelliSense and relatively advanced debugging tools give Windows a big advantage in certain areas.
Nonetheless, all my memories of developing using Visual Studio are horrible. This is because the actual Windows API is pretty ugly, and MFC... lets not even go there. Raw X programming is pretty nasty too, but using the Qt and GNOME toolkits development is much much easier than when using Windows, whereas the low-level stuff is just the way it should be.
Besides, I'm often working with a large number of quite small code files, spread over multiple desktops; and I prefer nedit as a text editor to Visual Studio anyway; it's a bonus that it's lighter weight. Microsoft documentation is to my mind inferior to much of the core Linux documentation, though YMMV.
I know that it is possible to get multiple virtual desktops for Windows (if you pay a fee) and nedit is probably also available. Qt is available for Windows, but you have to pay handsomely for the privilege. But Linux is well-nigh impossible to crash, and the command line beats any file manager into the ground. It's a totally different approach to development, and yes, there are disadvantages, but the sheer sweetness of the Linux APIs makes developing a pleasure, especially when you are convinced that the Un*x model is The One True Way to build an operating system.
Savant
As far as I recall under Windows 95, there are two buttons on the login screen: OK and Cancel. Cancel gets you into the system; indeed if you click OK several times failing each and then Cancel you get the desktop as it is set up for the user you've 'logged in' as.
Maybe this guy was very bright; but when faced with only 2 buttons, not to try both seems to suggest a lack of the inquiring mind that I've always felt intelligent folk should have...
Savant
As the long flame war draws to its close, it's becoming pretty evident that releasing the source as GPL and relicensing it for commercial use would fit what Peter Molyneux has said, be as open source as open source could be and lay to rest the doubters. Even if this is not the solution that he thought of, there is no reason to scream "BUT IT'S NOT OPEN SOURCE" without knowing more of the details.
./ award for him.
One question about this scenario though: can you relicense code you maintain and have written 95% of - which is GPL code - under a commercial licence? If not, the biggest plus of being open source for Bullfrog is gone (assuming they care about cash more than cool code, which may be a false assumption), as the bug fixes they might have made themselves with careful inspection are now locked into GPL mode, and although their game is patched on the cheap, they cannot resell patched code. If so, then where is the line drawn between source you can rerelease and source you can't?
Now the issue that concerns me more. Open sourcing the code implies that the code could be passed around in a way likely to give a games company that dislikes piracy the shivers (legal copying of binaries anyone?). Now there are 2 solutions I see to this. 1) The Descent solution - release code not artwork; risk someone redoing the artwork themselves (or 'close' the licence a bit by specifying original artwork only? Smells bad to me). 2) 'Close' the licence to prevent binary distribution altogether, make everyone compile their own copy. This is not GPL open source, but the only valid copyists of your game are now the development market you were happy to open your source to, and you engender tremendous developer community goodwill, so most of them will probably buy a copy of the game anyway. IMHO this is optimum for the interests of everyone concerned, although I'd be interested to hear others' comments.
Anyway, more power to Peter Molyneux's elbow; it's a grand gesture from a games company and quibbling would be churlish. If his ideas come to pass, I vote we make up some kind of
Sorry for any typos, lack of care in formatting, sloppy thoughts, etc; its late where I am.
Savant
One tiny point here - as far as I understand it,
GNUCash is personal finance software only. I
would dearly love it if it were a business-level
accounting package; this is the main Linux flaw
which leaves my father running under NT.
Does anyone know of any attempts to build an
industrial-strength accounting package for Linux?
Is this a final goal for GNUCash?
Savant
Memory problems under NT are seldom hardware.
Developing under NT and Linux I find that code
which seg-faults under Linux often runs under
NT. NT frequently allows code to access at least
some memory it hasn't allocated. Needless to say,
this leads to memory problems. This also, IMHO,
shows the claim that "it is NT applications which
cause the trouble, not NT itself", in a different
light, as, although this is partly true, Linux
wouldn't give the applications enough slack to
cause the same number of memory leaks.
Savant
Hello? Ranked 5 for reproducing the text at the
far end of the link? I can't see how this comment
would be informative to anyone who actually had
read the linked article (and hence seen the
table of contents) - shouldn't marking comments
up on information content be kept for ppl who
introduce supplementary useful information rather
than regurgitating the original article?
Sorry - just a minor rant.
Savant
Try looking at CoSource. I've been able to develop GPLed code and be paid for it
(well, actually I think the check is still in the post, as I haven't got it yet, but I digress).
There's quite a bit of cash floating about and CoSource has a few ideas on how to
make cash from software you are already developing, so I'd urge you to take a look.
Another avenue is sourceXchange, who cater for the corporate taste; but you
will have to convince a reasonably sized company to sponsor you.
Savant
Citizens,
We have come a long way in the last few years.
The inspirational guidance of Our Immortal Leader
has brought us to a peak of development
unparalleled in human history. Surely our
adoration of Him is right and just, for He is
responsible for our present utopia.
Nonetheless, it grieves me to say that some
dissidents, enemies of our state, have been
spreading poisonous seditions, saying that our
fine country is no longer what it once was - false
lies that Our Immortal Leader has authorised me to
put straight.
The first allegation to deal with is that Oceania
is a recent amalgamation of four ancient
countries, called 'America', 'Canada', 'Great
Britain' and 'The Republic of Ireland'. It is
further alleged that the moon landings of 1969
were not carried out by our fair Oceania, but by
this fictional 'America'. We have decided to
release to you the people the video of that
glorious happening. Note as you watch the video
the Oceania flag flying proudly over the duned
surface of the Moon; note the insignia on our
brave astronauts uniforms and on the landing
craft. See also the footage of Our Immortal
Leader greeting the astronauts on their return,
and decorating them with the Cross of Oceania.
Citizens, beware of these seditionists! They
allege further that the colonisation of the
surface is a myth, that we are no nearer to
returning there than a decade ago; but this
video will help convince you, citizens, that
they lie; see Our Immortal Leader viewing the
fields full of crops and giving His blessing to
the workers. See also the fine houses we build
on the surface; and we promise you citizens that
your efforts are not in vain; when you reach the
age of retirement you too can live there, in these
paradisaic and blissful surroundings. Those
who have already retired are waiting there for
you to join them, so do not believe the rebels'
self-seeking lies. We encourage all approaching
retirement age to approach their local
Commissioner and get him to sign their passes
to the Colonised Surface.
Citizens, I thank you for your patient hearing
of my address. As always, in the name of Our
Immortal Leader,
Chief Citizen of Lundun,
Fiscio Snark.
That is _primitive_. Try http://www.microopticalcorp.com/egdemo.htm. There you get to see a really nice HUD. /projects/wearables/ - the MIT
And if you like wearables, the place to go has to be http://belladonna.media.mit.edu
wearables page. It's full of nutritious wearables information.
Savant
There has been a movement in AI for a few years now called 'behaviourism', which started with a paper by Rodney Brooks advocating the building of robotic insects with simple 'behaviours' which interacted with each other to produce an apparent limited intelligence which could cope with the real world. Just thinking that the possibilities for building apparent intelligence into swarms of such robots - a 'hive mind' if you like - must be considerable. You wouldn't need super processing power in each robot if you could achieve good results through their interaction, but could churn out intelligent and semi-autonomous swarms with the 'mind' being apparent only when the dust is together.
Savant
Hmmm - now those who believe the US Government is spying on them from space really will let their paranoia loose.
;)
Will people who dust their houses too regularly be pulled in on suspicion of being spies?
Savant
Isn't there a possible pitfall in all this? Suppose you have A. Random Slashdotter and B. Random Slashdotter both reading a thread. A reads a post that is slightly off-topic, but finds it interesting. B reads the same post, finds it off-topic and doesn't find it interesting.
You're probably ahead of me here. But I'll spell it out. If A is moderating and B meta-moderating, A loses karma because his (valid) view does not coincide with B's. If B moderates and A meta-moderates, the situation is reversed.
Now I'm not sure this is a desirable situation; anyone else have any thoughts?
Savant
On the contrary: there are many kinds of software of nature only a little more specialised than your word processors and ftp clients that are not available on the Mac or Linux. Linux has no serious mid-end business accountancy software, for example. Such software is vital to the continued operation of many small businesses.
I did not "point out that [a nannying user interface] was exactly what my non-geek friends want", and indeed I'm not sure how you got that impression - I said that they were more interested in cheapness and compatibility. And although game development is having a resurgence on the Mac, it is still miles behind the Windows PC.
As to the developing for Linux thing, both Qt and GTK can be persuaded to port to Windows, and hence as one aiming first for Linux then Windows I can hardly be called a Mac developer whether my stuff can be ported to Mac or not.
Savant
I for one do not believe that Apple will suddenly become a major player in the PC market with the release of the G4.
Like Linux, they lag behind Windows as to number of applications and games available; unlike Linux, there is no industry
movement to close that gap. As a developer I would prefer to work on Linux - where my heart lies - or Windows -
where there is money to be made - than trying to cater for the Apple niche market. I suspect most developers will
feel similiarly.
As Katz said, "For years, no self-respecting geek would be caught dead on a Mac." Why? Because they are about
abstraction, hiding details of how the machine works away from the end user. And this does not attract developers in the
same way as artists. For the developer, the Mac hardware is quite cool; the MacOS with its nannying user interface is not.
And thus Borland's poll, when it asked about platforms people were interested in developing on, showed that there was
little enthusiasm to develop for the Mac, the iMac's hype notwithstanding.
Why is this important? For one reason: the life of an OS depends on developers and applications. That is why the Windows
PC now dominates the desktop; it has more applications to its name than any other platform. That is why Linux is a
rising force; it has captured the imagination of developers, and they have put blood, sweat and tears towards its advancement.
The Mac does not attract developers by nature, and it has not the momentum that gives Windows its edge.
"It is cool", Katz says. To whom? To my friends who know nothing of computers, 'coolness' is not an issue. They want
something that meets their simple requirements; they want it to be cheap; they want it to be compatible with everyone else.
Those who have computers but are not geeks get hacked off by system crashes more than by PC user-friendliness. They
often listen eagerly as I tell them of the rise and rise of an OS that hardly ever crashes. Those who are geeks would not touch
the MacOS with a barge-pole. Gadget freaks who aren't computer-literate enough to have chosen Windows or Linux are the
only market left.
Coincidentally, this is the same market as computer games reach. And the Mac is weak here compared to the PC. The Mac
may look cooler; the PC's games ARE cooler, at least in their eyes. And so the Mac loses even here.
I would like to question what Katz sees as the 'Apple Age', too. If it existed, it existed only for that relatively small group
of computer users who used Macs; many of these have now left the platform. What would make for a second such age? The
return of old users? The gain of new users? I can't see so many new users coming to the Mac that it would become a major force.
Just my tuppence...
Savant