Jordan was excited and shared the excitement. Then thought about the statement and asked for people to be quiet.
What was he gonna do? Send the slackware penguin by and flipper-slap people who talked? Have the Daemon come by and give 'em the old forked process?
Given the LACK of this news about this merger, it seems that people who were asked not to talk didn't talk. They respected the wishes of the BSD people.
The PLAN was to announce the merger at LinuxWorld, but that didn't happen. Very few people were asking why 2 seperate companies with 2 seperate design methodologies (OpenSourced $0 software gets community support VS 'ClosedSource' $995 we pay developers) were sharing the same booth.
Effects on Mac OS X: Bob Bruce said that "we will be working closely with Apple". So I don't see a problem WRT Mac OS X. The only problem with Apple is the mecurial nature of iCEO Jobs.
Who knows.....if FreeBSD goes IPO, with the 7 billion dollars you get for an IPO these days, FreeBSD just might buy Apple;-)
They have alot of other products that have some marketshare, but no one can argue the OS/Suite dominance.
Given: Price drives buying decisions
And, for $0, you can get OpenSource OSes (BSD for example) vs $319 for Windows 2000, *IF* BSD will do what you need to do, why buy Windows?
The products in the OpenSource OS market are mature and stable PLUS improving all the time.
So, there is a real threat to the OS market. And, at some point M$ will lose its dominant position, and become yet another OS choice. (in fact, why do you buy the M$ OS? To run Office and perhaps a few other apps like voice rec, OCR and games)
The Office Suite is another matter. At this time, no one has a credible office suite. Borland and Lotus are long gone. (for the clue-impaired Borland bought Word Perfect to make a suite out of Quattro and Paradox then sold it to Corel. Lotus was bought by IBM, and Samna's Ami Pro was the word processor. Ami Pro was thrown out in favor of some other thing.) M$ Office is the 'only' game in town, and there is NO SHIPPING OPENSOURCE MATURE alternative. There are many OpenSource works in progress, but none at the maturity level the OpenSource OS side is at.
**IF** Microsoft waits until the OpenSource versions get to maturity, and then jumps in making X86 based binaries that run in a Linux-compatibilty mode, it will be too late. And, they won't want to give up the Office suite ground without a fight.
And, look at this: If there WAS a viable office suite that ran in an OpenSource OS environment, would the demand be as strong for an OpenSoruce alternative?
A working $0 cost OS and a working $0 office suite tied in with a $0 email/browser is hard to beat with a $319-3,999 OS and $449 for a office suite. (Pricing from M$ web site) The OpenSource world has the $0 OS and $0 browser. With the Office Suite at $0, Microsoft can become just another software company.
Microsoft won't fade away at this triple $0 point, but they will be a lesser force.
>That's all well and good but what do the rest of us who load RedHat Linux do when, after a couple of hours, come aross a 'python' error and can't continue?
Again, back to researching what you buy/use.
I don't use RedHat. I use something called BSD. And *I* don't have 'python' errors.
And, again, if you researched your 'python error', you might be able to get the SAME error under Windows.
>Microsoft does raise the bar What bar is this? The one where people go to drink after a day of work where they re-load the OS to fix a problem? Even Microsoft admits that NT crashes every 5 days. (the 2000 rollout) And you call this a 'raised bar'? Unix has had stablility for YEARS. Microsoft claims 2000 is stable. Microsoft also claimed NT was stable.
I don't know Joe....Unix has been around 'for the rest of us' for years.
Its a matter of if you do research as a consumer to find what you need, or do you just use whatever was pre-loaded on the box you bought. I guess I have a higher standard of what I expect from my computers than Microsoft has delivered.
If you are happy with crashes, data corruption, and re-loading your OS, then by all means keep that 'technology to the rest of us.'
Given that Apple (the computer for the rest of us) is moving to Unix, it looks like the only 'geek factor' to Unix is close-minded people such as yourself Joe.
All Microsoft has done is lower what people expect from software. The EXPECT lockups, re-loading and reboots. Exactly HOW does this help comsumers?
I was wondering if anyone who was involved in the Craig Neidorf case would post.
I remember that Craig asked for donations from 'the community' to help defray his lawyer bills. I remember the amount was over 100,000 US Dollars, and he got some small amout of like $200 dollars.
So, does anyone have the final $ figures as to what it takes to defend ones freedom and how little was donated to Craig?
Microsoft rules over Linux. or perhaps FreeBSD rules over Linux.
Would you consider that a 'dissenting opinion and the truth'.
If you care about shipping and buyable voice to text systems, then yes M$ rules over Linux.
If you think the GPL licence is a bad licence, and the BSD licence is better, then yes, FreeBSD is the OpenSource ruler over Linux.
In the case of these 2 examples, Linux is the loser.
Rather than spending your time whining about moderation, why don't you spend your time writing some code, or at least work on extracting you head from your ass.
That, when Mr. Metcalfe suggested the Transmeta processor should be OpenSourced, a group of people said that hardware can't be OpenSourced because hardware can't be OpenSourced.
I spent time chatting with people at The Bazzar and LinuxWorld. Lo and behold, others are interested in such, but not enough to spend money.
LinuxFund.Org thinks no one wants an accounting package, enough to pay for one.
One group of CPA's turned programmers would be happy to code the inital GL/AP/AR/basic Invoicing if they could get enough money to pay food bills/basics for 30 days. They have spent 10+years writting accounting packages, and WANT to do an OpenSource package. They just want to get SOME money for the effort.
Me, I've offered $500 toward the project...assuming they do some documentation of what the $5000 they feel they need for 30 days of work will get them. PostgreSQL, Python, Zope and TCL/TK as the tools for the project.
Does any/.ers have suggestions for funding methods for these accountants?
If you visit www.apple.com/macosx/inside.html you can see Apple uses FreeBSD. Combine that with WindowMaker and it will look NeXT-ish, and by extension, Mac OS X ish.
The EE Times article was all about small
on
38-Inch LCD Panels
·
· Score: 2
EE Times pointed out how the technology could take 2 inch by 2 inch screens and glue them together.
Given the excess capacity in the small market, and how cheap a 2x2 is, we can get big displays from small.
21 inch displays for under a grand in 3 years was what caught my eye.
I'm reminded of the words on a Illumanti New World Order card. (Looking for my all in one set, can't find) The card is "Every Year is Worse". The quote as I remember: On a 2,500 BC stone tablet - The latest generation of kids have no respect for the elders.
Apple is the latest vendor to try making Unix a desktop OS. And Apple ALREADY is considered a "desktop os", not "up and comming" nor are questions asked "is Mac OS ready for the desktop?"
As vendors look to the up and comming Unix market (expressed by Free/Open/NetBSD,BSD/OS, Mac OS X, and Linux) they will see an oppertunity. Writing code to sell to Mac users and doing it in a portable way helps ALL of the Unix OSes.
Intel has publicly stated they wish to sell more chips.
To that end, they have invested in many startups that will drive chip sales.
This encryption thing is just a way to sell more CPUs. As far as I am concerned, a cheap way to do it. (Cheap as in low cost for Intel. Encryption glued onto video. *YAWN*)
IF they want to drive chip sales in the display market, IBM and Toshiba's 200+ dpi LCD displays will need a whole new generation of silicon to drive them, and these applications would actual be useful.
Jef Rafkin called his project Macintosh. When Steve was moved to Macintosh (because no one else in the company wanted to deal with him) Jobs and the rest of the crew liked the name.
Apple tried to buy the name off the stereo maker. No luck. Then, Jobs walked into a meeting when spirits within the Mac developer group was low, and showboated. He announced that Apple had bought the name Macintosh.
1) Apple could try to get the name, and prove Jobs to be a liar. 2) Apple had to buy the name...whatever the cost, thus the lie of Jobs would not be known.
6 million in early 1980 dollars is the common figure bantered about for what the name cost Apple.
1) To cheapen up the printing of materials. 1 color vs 6. 2) To allow Apple to establish an iron rule over the brand. Mr. Jobs does understand the importance of branding. He'd love to see Apple become as big a brand as Sony.
If Apple is wanting EVERY theme that makes the machine look Aqua-esque (or Mac OS esque) then someone needs to take Apple to court. If they are only being anal about the 1/2 chewed Apple logo, they are intitled to be anal.
Slashdot Mirror
Pressure-smessure.
Jordan was excited and shared the excitement. Then thought about the statement and asked for people to be quiet.
What was he gonna do? Send the slackware penguin by and flipper-slap people who talked? Have the Daemon come by and give 'em the old forked process?
Given the LACK of this news about this merger, it seems that people who were asked not to talk didn't talk. They respected the wishes of the BSD people.
Now I can talk about the merger.
;-)
The PLAN was to announce the merger at LinuxWorld, but that didn't happen. Very few people were asking why 2 seperate companies with 2 seperate design methodologies (OpenSourced $0 software gets community support VS 'ClosedSource' $995 we pay developers) were sharing the same booth.
Effects on Mac OS X: Bob Bruce said that "we will be working closely with Apple". So I don't see a problem WRT Mac OS X. The only problem with Apple is the mecurial nature of iCEO Jobs.
Who knows.....if FreeBSD goes IPO, with the 7 billion dollars you get for an IPO these days, FreeBSD just might buy Apple
And these are:
The Windows Operating System
The office suite
They have alot of other products that have some marketshare, but no one can argue the OS/Suite dominance.
Given:
Price drives buying decisions
And, for $0, you can get OpenSource OSes (BSD for example) vs $319 for Windows 2000, *IF* BSD will do what you need to do, why buy Windows?
The products in the OpenSource OS market are mature and stable PLUS improving all the time.
So, there is a real threat to the OS market. And, at some point M$ will lose its dominant position, and become yet another OS choice. (in fact, why do you buy the M$ OS? To run Office and perhaps a few other apps like voice rec, OCR and games)
The Office Suite is another matter. At this time, no one has a credible office suite. Borland and Lotus are long gone. (for the clue-impaired Borland bought Word Perfect to make a suite out of Quattro and Paradox then sold it to Corel. Lotus was bought by IBM, and Samna's Ami Pro was the word processor. Ami Pro was thrown out in favor of some other thing.) M$ Office is the 'only' game in town, and there is NO SHIPPING OPENSOURCE MATURE alternative.
There are many OpenSource works in progress, but none at the maturity level the OpenSource OS side is at.
**IF** Microsoft waits until the OpenSource versions get to maturity, and then jumps in making X86 based binaries that run in a
Linux-compatibilty mode, it will be too late. And, they won't want to give up the Office suite ground without a fight.
And, look at this: If there WAS a viable office suite that ran in an OpenSource OS environment, would the demand be as strong for an OpenSoruce alternative?
A working $0 cost OS and a working $0 office suite tied in with a $0 email/browser is hard to beat with a $319-3,999 OS and $449 for a office suite. (Pricing from M$ web site)
The OpenSource world has the $0 OS and $0 browser. With the Office Suite at $0, Microsoft can become just another software company.
Microsoft won't fade away at this triple $0 point, but they will be a lesser force.
>Unix/Linux is still not ready for the desktop
Apple gets to be the next company to try to make unix on the desktop.
in 6 months or so, Mac OS X (non-server edition) will ship, and next year it will be pre-loaded on ALL boxes.
If Apple keeps selling boxes after moving to unix (Mac OS X) then unix makes a fine desktop.
>Can we still be friends?
*smile* we never were friends, nor enemies.
>That's all well and good but what do the rest of us who load RedHat Linux do when, after a couple of hours, come aross a 'python' error and can't continue?
Again, back to researching what you buy/use.
I don't use RedHat.
I use something called BSD. And *I* don't have 'python' errors.
And, again, if you researched your 'python error', you might be able to get the SAME error under Windows.
>Microsoft does raise the bar
What bar is this? The one where people go to drink after a day of work where they re-load the OS to fix a problem?
Even Microsoft admits that NT crashes every 5 days. (the 2000 rollout) And you call this a 'raised bar'?
Unix has had stablility for YEARS. Microsoft claims 2000 is stable. Microsoft also claimed NT was stable.
Guess your 'bar' is a whole lot lower than mine.
SAM on an Apple ][+, via the speaker port.
I don't know Joe....Unix has been around 'for the rest of us' for years.
Its a matter of if you do research as a consumer to find what you need, or do you just use whatever was pre-loaded on the box you bought. I guess I have a higher standard of what I expect from my computers than Microsoft has delivered.
If you are happy with crashes, data corruption, and re-loading your OS, then by all means keep that 'technology to the rest of us.'
Given that Apple (the computer for the rest of us) is moving to Unix, it looks like the only 'geek factor' to Unix is close-minded people such as yourself Joe.
All Microsoft has done is lower what people expect from software. The EXPECT lockups, re-loading and reboots. Exactly HOW does this help comsumers?
The BSD OSes have made the Bug reporting list, but they have not made the nightly builds/release builds.
Anytime you submit a bug report, they say 'use a current build'. Make BSD builds, and you will get current info.
If they build it, we will come.
I was wondering if anyone who was involved in the Craig Neidorf case would post.
I remember that Craig asked for donations from 'the community' to help defray his lawyer bills. I remember the amount was over 100,000 US Dollars, and he got some small amout of like $200 dollars.
So, does anyone have the final $ figures as to what it takes to defend ones freedom and how little was donated to Craig?
Why is it moderated Downward?
If someone posted:
Microsoft rules over Linux.
or perhaps
FreeBSD rules over Linux.
Would you consider that a 'dissenting opinion and the truth'.
If you care about shipping and buyable voice to text systems, then yes M$ rules over Linux.
If you think the GPL licence is a bad licence, and the BSD licence is better, then yes, FreeBSD is the OpenSource ruler over Linux.
In the case of these 2 examples, Linux is the loser.
Rather than spending your time whining about moderation, why don't you spend your time writing some code, or at least work on extracting you head from your ass.
That, when Mr. Metcalfe suggested the Transmeta processor should be OpenSourced, a group of people said that hardware can't be OpenSourced because hardware can't be OpenSourced.
As others pointed out then, yes it can.
FreeMoney and Cratchit are two examples of attempts.
I spent time chatting with people at The Bazzar and LinuxWorld. Lo and behold, others are interested in such, but not enough to spend money.
LinuxFund.Org thinks no one wants an accounting package, enough to pay for one.
One group of CPA's turned programmers would be happy to code the inital GL/AP/AR /basic Invoicing if they could get enough money to pay food bills/basics for 30 days. They have spent 10+years writting accounting packages, and WANT to do an OpenSource package. They just want to get SOME money for the effort.
Me, I've offered $500 toward the project...assuming they do some documentation of what the $5000 they feel they need for 30 days of work will get them. PostgreSQL, Python, Zope and TCL/TK as the tools for the project.
Does any /.ers have suggestions for funding methods for these accountants?
WNT = VMS "done right"
Search for Cutler
In Gauntlet Ledgends for her stats.
Now I found out its because I wanna explore gender. Wow.
If you visit www.apple.com/macosx/inside.html you can see Apple uses FreeBSD. Combine that with WindowMaker and it will look NeXT-ish, and by extension, Mac OS X ish.
EE Times pointed out how the technology could take 2 inch by 2 inch screens and glue them together.
Given the excess capacity in the small market, and how cheap a 2x2 is, we can get big displays from small.
21 inch displays for under a grand in 3 years was what caught my eye.
Its called a failed IPO.
I'm reminded of the words on a Illumanti New World Order card. (Looking for my all in one set, can't find) The card is "Every Year is Worse". The quote as I remember: On a 2,500 BC stone tablet - The latest generation of kids have no respect for the elders.
PICK is an example. (ok, they support 2-3 others)
Why the Linux-centric SHOULD care about Apple.
Apple is the latest vendor to try making Unix a desktop OS.
And Apple ALREADY is considered a "desktop os", not "up and comming" nor are questions asked "is Mac OS ready for the desktop?"
As vendors look to the up and comming Unix market (expressed by Free/Open/NetBSD,BSD/OS, Mac OS X, and Linux) they will see an oppertunity. Writing code to sell to Mac users and doing it in a portable way helps ALL of the Unix OSes.
Intel has publicly stated they wish to sell more chips.
To that end, they have invested in many startups that will drive chip sales.
This encryption thing is just a way to sell more CPUs. As far as I am concerned, a cheap way to do it. (Cheap as in low cost for Intel. Encryption glued onto video. *YAWN*)
IF they want to drive chip sales in the display market, IBM and Toshiba's 200+ dpi LCD displays will need a whole new generation of silicon to drive them, and these applications would actual be useful.
What you are remembering is Jobs showboating.
Jef Rafkin called his project Macintosh. When Steve was moved to Macintosh (because no one else in the company wanted to deal with him) Jobs and the rest of the crew liked the name.
Apple tried to buy the name off the stereo maker. No luck. Then, Jobs walked into a meeting when spirits within the Mac developer group was low, and showboated. He announced that Apple had bought the name Macintosh.
1) Apple could try to get the name, and prove Jobs to be a liar.
2) Apple had to buy the name...whatever the cost, thus the lie of Jobs would not be known.
6 million in early 1980 dollars is the common figure bantered about for what the name cost Apple.
So, no suit.
Have you considered getting Ed Foster on here to answer questions/offer an opinion?
Mr. Foster has been fighting this battle over the UTICA for years. He can offer a unique presepctive on how to fight this.
Part of the reason Apple re-did the logo:
1) To cheapen up the printing of materials. 1 color vs 6.
2) To allow Apple to establish an iron rule over the brand. Mr. Jobs does understand the importance of branding. He'd love to see Apple become as big a brand as Sony.
If Apple is wanting EVERY theme that makes the machine look Aqua-esque (or Mac OS esque) then someone needs to take Apple to court. If they are only being anal about the 1/2 chewed Apple logo, they are intitled to be anal.
The original settlement was Apple Computer was NOT to enter the music business. (aka no computers that could 'do music')
Apple was then sued a second time, and lost 26 million.
A link with some other links about it.
What makes the Palm or a Newton Useful?
The user space apps.
Things like the names/dates/call logging application.
And, face it, most of the apps like that under the modern Unixes need to go on a resource diet if they want to fit on a handheld.
Who's been writing the lo-resource version of Xcalendar? OR a database?