RTFA. Google isn't charging for anything. Another idiot submitter screws up an article. Surprise Surprise. FTFA:
"SEARCHING THE WORLD. What's more, publishers don't have to share the wealth with Google. The search-engine company will receive no payment from publishers' content fees, advertising, or supplying traffic. Search results will be ranked by relevance, without any influence from publishers. The results initially will be served without Google's customary sponsored links on the right side of the page, and at the outset, Google won't make money directly from the service."
Google provides the link, you pay the original news agency for access, not Google. Nothing is stopping the news agency from not even using Google Checkout, and going with Paypal instead.
I just did numerous searches, and not a single one required me to pay Google for access. Every single one required me to pay the original news agency directly.
They aren't charging for anything. On Slashdot, it is always a good idea to ignore the summary and read the article yourself. The idiot submitter obviously didn't actually read the article before submitting it to Slashdot.
Ummm, this is part of Google News, not Library. Try reading the article before commenting. Oh, and the idiot submitter screwed it up, Google isn't charging for anything. They are providing links to sites that do charge for this content. K, thx, bye
Why is no one able to get article summaries right anymore? Slashdot should pay people to fix everyone's mistakes.
Google has no intention of selling anything. The bloody article itself says so. They are going to provide links where you can buy it from the original publisher, many of which sell old news articles. They're not even going to make any money from the service right now. I just tried a few searches, and on every single one, it sends me to the original publishers' site, where I can purchase access to the article.
This site is going downhill.... More and more illiterates seem to be coming here everyday.
I agree that Spaces is available on Windows (although not nearly as nice), but since when is a Time Machine like program available from Microsoft? And don't say System Restore, the two programs aren't even in the same ballpark. System Restore only does system files, not every file on your system back to the first time you turned your computer on.
Oh shit. And here I thought using Parallels once a year to use my Windows only tax software was going to be alright when that time rolled around. Now that I know I should have never bought a Mac, even though it works better than a PC for everything else I need to do, I'm going to go and toss my Mac Mini in the garbage this instance....
Or else these programs are supported by Crossover Office for Linux perhaps (which shares its database with Crossover Mac)? Your theory is hogwash, considering most unsupported applications won't run, irregardless of size, whereas huge programs like Microsoft Office will run when specifically targetted by Codeweavers. A perfect example, pretty much every Office version is supported, but the Microsoft Works install program won't even finish.
So if someone loves running OS X and owns a Mac, but there is just one Windows program that they need, they should just switch to Windows??? Even if this piece of software is supported by Crossover Mac??? Guess no one who needs to do taxes in Canada should look at a Mac anytime soon. God forbid they use Parallels or Crossover to do their taxes... As for iTunes and Office, the compatability is carried over from Crossover Office for Linux.
I've always liked Google's Picasa better than iPhoto, so I gave this a whirl with Picasa and it worked perfectly. I figured it would, since the Linux version of Picasa runs through Wine, and Codeweavers did a lot of the porting work for it. I just told it to scan my Y: (Y: is mapped to your home folder in Crossover Mac) and it found all of the photos in my iPhoto library and loaded them into Picasa.
Apple releases new features that consumers can actually use with each new release. Microsoft doesn't.
Current examples: Time Machine, Spaces, Mail Stationary, iChat Theatre, etc etc. Microsoft's service packs, while containing a lot of low level fixes, and sometimes new security features, never include new consumer level programs or features.
Well, considering the Apache webserver never has been released under the GPL, that is an extremely bad example. The Apache Web Server is released under the....Apache open source license.
$1300 for iDVD??? It ships for free on all Macs in Canada. I doubt someone making home videos needs final cut pro, just like a home user doesn't need Windows XP Pro. I have done wedding videos for family members, and charged them for it, using iDVD.
And I'm talking about professional video editors, not someone who may try video editing in the future just for the fun of it. You would fit into the class of "tinkerer" or "rookie", not professional.
As for my Mac, after originally purchasing it, I have yet to pay Apple a single dime and I do a lot more with a lot less work required than I got done on Linux.
Are things (price-wise) really all that different over in Europe? How much is the Mac Mini Core Duo currently in Europe where you live, after being converted to American Dollars?
Naw, more like trollish babbling. OCR doesn't handle curving lines and distorted letters well. If you want to make yourself seem intelligent, at least research your shit first and try to stay on topic.:)
Or use Windows and don't download dangerous software. Any piece of software with a set of "therms of use" should be avoided (see the software's home page to know what I'm talking about). Or of course buy a Mac (sorry, Apple fanboy here:-P)
More like 0mph once you try to do any of the things most Mac users buy a Mac computer for, such as video editing for one example. The rest of the Mac users buy a Mac because it is easy to use and has a broad range of software, neither of which Linux has, unless you talk about the "10,000 applications Debian ships", many of which are libraries, with the rest being crappy alphas or developer tools. The only good applications Linux has are all either available on OS X or have better OS X counterparts. Any missing can generally be run using fink and X11.
Oh, wait, what am I thinking?!?! 2006 is the year of the Linux desktop!!! *bursts appendix laughing*
"You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before."
Maybe because Macs now use Intel chips and Windows can actually be installed natively on them now? Maybe because Parallels knocks the socks off of MS Virtual PC for Macs in terms of speed, which is only possible with Intel. Of course there is going to be more talk about Windows being installed on Macs, considering it is now fast with virtualization and doesn't require emulation, and also considering it is now POSSIBLE to do so natively. Like, durrrr....
"some users have shrugged it off and moved on to the Microsoft side of things."
Of course some are. Unless the author presents statistics stating HOW MANY users have done so, the statement has no real meaning.
"Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they?"
I'm pretty sure Apple was kind of expecting talk about Windows running on a Mac to increase when they, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, enabled this to be done easily and practically. I somehow doubt Apple expected talk to decrease when they did this. Again, durrrrr.....
"and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
They still are. It still requires a reboot to switch between them (excluding Parallels). Apple has recognized that some users want to switch to a Mac, but still require Windows for one or two applications. They have made it possible for most of these users to switch. (I think Parallels solution is more elegant personally). Apple also recognizes that very very few Apple purchasers are going to dump OS X and run Windows exclusively.
"Boy, for something that they speak so badly of and accuse of ripping them off, they sure are in a hurry to let you run it side by side with their offering. Why is this? Well, it's all in the numbers."
Because some people need to run one or two Windows applications, but prefer using a Mac for most things. A good example, there is absolutely NO Canadian Tax software for the Mac that I am aware of, but Parallels/Boot Camp make it possible for a Canadian such as myself to do their taxes on their Mac (such as my Mac Mini). Without access to Quicktax and similar pieces of software, I probably would have stuck with a PC. Boot Camp was actually an intelligent move in my opinion.
"Apple knows that those who are envious of the Mac hardware will be more inclined to purchase it if they can run Windows (their relied upon operating system of choice). The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love. It almost sounds like a soap opera when you put it that way, huh?"
I somehow find it very difficult to believe that Windows users are envious of Mac hardware, which in most cases is over-priced compared to Dell, or even Alienware in the case of laptops. I have yet to meet a single Mac user, including a few Intel owners, who bought a Mac because of the hardware. They all bought it because of OS X. I also was in the Apple store the other day, and they had 3 iMacs, 2 running OS X and 1 running XP Pro. A couple people said "oh cool, they run Windows as well now", and then promptly moved onto the OS X computers to play around with them instead.
"I've enjoyed watching Microsoft's response to all of this, because there really hasn't been much of one."
What did you expect them to do, start reselling Mac computers for Apple? Of course they're going to be happy when more Mac users buy licenses for Windows, but there isn't really much they can respond to. Apple still isn't shipping Windows on Macs, and I asked a person at my local Apple store
I've taken this blogger's scheme to make ad dollars and simplified it even more.
1) Write a Blog entry detailing how I can "hack" a website by typing in the URL of said website and viewing publ....erm...."private" web content. 2) Place Adsense on said blog 3) Submit article showing this ultra-cool top secret hack to Slashdot. 4) Slashdot's monkeys begin the review process 5) ????? 6) PROFIT!!!
Did we really need a front page story telling how if you post your friggin calendar information on an internet service, and then specifically tell said service to let anyone in the world view it, that there is going to be some breach of privacy? What's even scarier is that some people probably changed the default setting, which lets NO ONE see the information, to allow everyone to look through it, and then got all worried after reading this article... No one ever said the vast majority of people are intelligent though.
What's next? People are going to post the entire contents of their will on blogger and then suddenly panic when they realize everyone can read their will?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the same as the article in the summary, which the submitter seemed content to mangle and change before submitting it to slashdot.
You'll have to wait quite a while.....considering GOOGLE ISN'T CHARGING FOR ANYTHING RTFA!!!!
Yes, his point is that you should RTFA.
Parent points out submitters screw-up, which conflicts with the linked article itself, and gets modded down for it?
Google's not charging for anything. Read the article, ignore the summary.
RTFA. Google isn't charging for anything. Another idiot submitter screws up an article. Surprise Surprise. FTFA:
"SEARCHING THE WORLD. What's more, publishers don't have to share the wealth with Google. The search-engine company will receive no payment from publishers' content fees, advertising, or supplying traffic. Search results will be ranked by relevance, without any influence from publishers. The results initially will be served without Google's customary sponsored links on the right side of the page, and at the outset, Google won't make money directly from the service."
Google provides the link, you pay the original news agency for access, not Google. Nothing is stopping the news agency from not even using Google Checkout, and going with Paypal instead.
I just did numerous searches, and not a single one required me to pay Google for access. Every single one required me to pay the original news agency directly.
They aren't charging for anything. On Slashdot, it is always a good idea to ignore the summary and read the article yourself. The idiot submitter obviously didn't actually read the article before submitting it to Slashdot.
Ummm, this is part of Google News, not Library. Try reading the article before commenting. Oh, and the idiot submitter screwed it up, Google isn't charging for anything. They are providing links to sites that do charge for this content. K, thx, bye
Why is no one able to get article summaries right anymore? Slashdot should pay people to fix everyone's mistakes.
Google has no intention of selling anything. The bloody article itself says so. They are going to provide links where you can buy it from the original publisher, many of which sell old news articles. They're not even going to make any money from the service right now. I just tried a few searches, and on every single one, it sends me to the original publishers' site, where I can purchase access to the article.
This site is going downhill.... More and more illiterates seem to be coming here everyday.
I agree that Spaces is available on Windows (although not nearly as nice), but since when is a Time Machine like program available from Microsoft? And don't say System Restore, the two programs aren't even in the same ballpark. System Restore only does system files, not every file on your system back to the first time you turned your computer on.
Oh shit. And here I thought using Parallels once a year to use my Windows only tax software was going to be alright when that time rolled around. Now that I know I should have never bought a Mac, even though it works better than a PC for everything else I need to do, I'm going to go and toss my Mac Mini in the garbage this instance....
Moron.
Or else these programs are supported by Crossover Office for Linux perhaps (which shares its database with Crossover Mac)? Your theory is hogwash, considering most unsupported applications won't run, irregardless of size, whereas huge programs like Microsoft Office will run when specifically targetted by Codeweavers. A perfect example, pretty much every Office version is supported, but the Microsoft Works install program won't even finish.
So if someone loves running OS X and owns a Mac, but there is just one Windows program that they need, they should just switch to Windows??? Even if this piece of software is supported by Crossover Mac??? Guess no one who needs to do taxes in Canada should look at a Mac anytime soon. God forbid they use Parallels or Crossover to do their taxes... As for iTunes and Office, the compatability is carried over from Crossover Office for Linux.
Because this compatability is carried over from the much more mature Crossover Office for Linux, where native versions aren't available.
I've always liked Google's Picasa better than iPhoto, so I gave this a whirl with Picasa and it worked perfectly. I figured it would, since the Linux version of Picasa runs through Wine, and Codeweavers did a lot of the porting work for it. I just told it to scan my Y: (Y: is mapped to your home folder in Crossover Mac) and it found all of the photos in my iPhoto library and loaded them into Picasa.
Apple releases new features that consumers can actually use with each new release. Microsoft doesn't.
Current examples: Time Machine, Spaces, Mail Stationary, iChat Theatre, etc etc. Microsoft's service packs, while containing a lot of low level fixes, and sometimes new security features, never include new consumer level programs or features.
Well, considering the Apache webserver never has been released under the GPL, that is an extremely bad example. The Apache Web Server is released under the....Apache open source license.
So? X11 isn't under the GPL... The only part that links to the kernel, which is GPL, is the kernel module, which is also GPL.
$1300 for iDVD??? It ships for free on all Macs in Canada. I doubt someone making home videos needs final cut pro, just like a home user doesn't need Windows XP Pro. I have done wedding videos for family members, and charged them for it, using iDVD.
And I'm talking about professional video editors, not someone who may try video editing in the future just for the fun of it. You would fit into the class of "tinkerer" or "rookie", not professional.
As for my Mac, after originally purchasing it, I have yet to pay Apple a single dime and I do a lot more with a lot less work required than I got done on Linux.
Are things (price-wise) really all that different over in Europe? How much is the Mac Mini Core Duo currently in Europe where you live, after being converted to American Dollars?
Naw, more like trollish babbling. OCR doesn't handle curving lines and distorted letters well. If you want to make yourself seem intelligent, at least research your shit first and try to stay on topic. :)
Or use Windows and don't download dangerous software. Any piece of software with a set of "therms of use" should be avoided (see the software's home page to know what I'm talking about). Or of course buy a Mac (sorry, Apple fanboy here :-P)
"45mph(Linux)"
More like 0mph once you try to do any of the things most Mac users buy a Mac computer for, such as video editing for one example. The rest of the Mac users buy a Mac because it is easy to use and has a broad range of software, neither of which Linux has, unless you talk about the "10,000 applications Debian ships", many of which are libraries, with the rest being crappy alphas or developer tools. The only good applications Linux has are all either available on OS X or have better OS X counterparts. Any missing can generally be run using fink and X11.
Oh, wait, what am I thinking?!?! 2006 is the year of the Linux desktop!!! *bursts appendix laughing*
"You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before."
Maybe because Macs now use Intel chips and Windows can actually be installed natively on them now? Maybe because Parallels knocks the socks off of MS Virtual PC for Macs in terms of speed, which is only possible with Intel. Of course there is going to be more talk about Windows being installed on Macs, considering it is now fast with virtualization and doesn't require emulation, and also considering it is now POSSIBLE to do so natively. Like, durrrr....
"some users have shrugged it off and moved on to the Microsoft side of things."
Of course some are. Unless the author presents statistics stating HOW MANY users have done so, the statement has no real meaning.
"Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they?"
I'm pretty sure Apple was kind of expecting talk about Windows running on a Mac to increase when they, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, enabled this to be done easily and practically. I somehow doubt Apple expected talk to decrease when they did this. Again, durrrrr.....
"and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
They still are. It still requires a reboot to switch between them (excluding Parallels). Apple has recognized that some users want to switch to a Mac, but still require Windows for one or two applications. They have made it possible for most of these users to switch. (I think Parallels solution is more elegant personally). Apple also recognizes that very very few Apple purchasers are going to dump OS X and run Windows exclusively.
"Boy, for something that they speak so badly of and accuse of ripping them off, they sure are in a hurry to let you run it side by side with their offering. Why is this? Well, it's all in the numbers."
Because some people need to run one or two Windows applications, but prefer using a Mac for most things. A good example, there is absolutely NO Canadian Tax software for the Mac that I am aware of, but Parallels/Boot Camp make it possible for a Canadian such as myself to do their taxes on their Mac (such as my Mac Mini). Without access to Quicktax and similar pieces of software, I probably would have stuck with a PC. Boot Camp was actually an intelligent move in my opinion.
"Apple knows that those who are envious of the Mac hardware will be more inclined to purchase it if they can run Windows (their relied upon operating system of choice). The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love. It almost sounds like a soap opera when you put it that way, huh?"
I somehow find it very difficult to believe that Windows users are envious of Mac hardware, which in most cases is over-priced compared to Dell, or even Alienware in the case of laptops. I have yet to meet a single Mac user, including a few Intel owners, who bought a Mac because of the hardware. They all bought it because of OS X. I also was in the Apple store the other day, and they had 3 iMacs, 2 running OS X and 1 running XP Pro. A couple people said "oh cool, they run Windows as well now", and then promptly moved onto the OS X computers to play around with them instead.
"I've enjoyed watching Microsoft's response to all of this, because there really hasn't been much of one."
What did you expect them to do, start reselling Mac computers for Apple? Of course they're going to be happy when more Mac users buy licenses for Windows, but there isn't really much they can respond to. Apple still isn't shipping Windows on Macs, and I asked a person at my local Apple store
Ummm, whoops. He mentioned at the end of the article that this only applies to public calendars. Mod my parent comment down if you wish.
I've taken this blogger's scheme to make ad dollars and simplified it even more.
1) Write a Blog entry detailing how I can "hack" a website by typing in the URL of said website and viewing publ....erm...."private" web content.
2) Place Adsense on said blog
3) Submit article showing this ultra-cool top secret hack to Slashdot.
4) Slashdot's monkeys begin the review process
5) ?????
6) PROFIT!!!
Did we really need a front page story telling how if you post your friggin calendar information on an internet service, and then specifically tell said service to let anyone in the world view it, that there is going to be some breach of privacy? What's even scarier is that some people probably changed the default setting, which lets NO ONE see the information, to allow everyone to look through it, and then got all worried after reading this article... No one ever said the vast majority of people are intelligent though.
What's next? People are going to post the entire contents of their will on blogger and then suddenly panic when they realize everyone can read their will?