You'll have to do a re-install. And installing debian is NOT installing RedHat or Mandrake. Think text-based. Think installing a lot of your own packages after you think it's all said and done. The default install won't just dump everything onto your system. You'll have to be comfortable with apt-getting the stuff you need.
Debian is great because you really can know everything that's loaded on your system. The tricky part is that you're the one who has to get it there.
I love my debian system, but, for example, I had to apt-get the SVGA XServer after the install was complete. Its not an easy install.
Most of the posts on this topic suggest setting up a server somewhere solely to md5sum a relatively small chunk of data. Essentially the same effect could be produced by adding an option to GAIM to specify a file on which to calculate checksum requests. The AOL version of AIM is a free download, so why not just get a copy, extract aim.exe, throw it in your GAIM folder, tell GAIM to checksum it, and be done with this? Why would anyone set up a server to do what each client can do on its own? Aim.exe is FREE. Hell, I'll give you a copy.
I've been running Windows2000 on my desktop for months and I've had fewer problems than I can count on one hand. Even when applications crash badly they rarely take the OS along with them. Contrast this with Windows9x, which crashed 4 times the day I pulled my PC out of the box. It is obvious that every Slashdot poster who bashes Windows2000 on the grounds of stability has never used it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Linux fan. I'm posting this from a Mozilla0.8 nightly build on Debian. But it took me weeks to get Linux (and its apps) up and running the way I wanted it. Windows2000 I installed in a day and had configured the next day. There's a lot to be said for Windows2000 usability (which is a valid concern with XP). Reliability, though, is a non-issue.
MrSndrs
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
The iMac was what brought Apple back into the position of being a real competitor in the industry, and it did so by winning consumers - not businesses. The iMac sold well despite the availability of much more powerful PCs at lower prices because of its aesthetics and reputation as easy to use. Consumers eat up that kind of stuff, and Apple took advantage of that.
You can argue that the G3/G4 processors aren't nesesarily slower at lower clockspeeds than Intel chips, but for average Joe Consumer, bigger numbers mean better. And the reality is that average folks bought iMacs they thought were less powerful than comparable PCs becuase of reputation and aesthetics.
Apple knows that OS X is more than eye candy, and I know it too, but average Joe Consumer doesn't. He just hears numbers and dollar signs and sees pretty colors and ease of use. And he'll still buy it. I think Apple's consumer hardware business is safe.
On the business-end, adoption of OS X depends on application support. If you think any professional wants to run Photoshop in emulation, you probably aren't a professional yourself. Businesses won't switch until the apps are there, and from the looks of it, the ports are taking forever even when focusing on PowerPC. To expect the conversion to OS X and to x86 is ludicrous. No company would even try that - its not feasible in a reasonable timetable.
I think OS X for x86 would be very cool. And I think Apple could release it without jeopardizing their hardware business because I don't see it ever becoming a feasible platform. Cult-following? Maybe. Tinkerers? Probably. Real market? No.
The Register has more on this, but their info seems to differ from the above. They imply that this is merely a wireless networking framework that will use cellular and Digital TV bandwidth. In other words, its not a phone or a TV or a combination of the two. But I guess the potential's there. Maybe. Please.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll have to do a re-install. And installing debian is NOT installing RedHat or Mandrake. Think text-based. Think installing a lot of your own packages after you think it's all said and done. The default install won't just dump everything onto your system. You'll have to be comfortable with apt-getting the stuff you need.
Debian is great because you really can know everything that's loaded on your system. The tricky part is that you're the one who has to get it there.
I love my debian system, but, for example, I had to apt-get the SVGA XServer after the install was complete. Its not an easy install.
Word. MrSndrs
Most of the posts on this topic suggest setting up a server somewhere solely to md5sum a relatively small chunk of data. Essentially the same effect could be produced by adding an option to GAIM to specify a file on which to calculate checksum requests. The AOL version of AIM is a free download, so why not just get a copy, extract aim.exe, throw it in your GAIM folder, tell GAIM to checksum it, and be done with this? Why would anyone set up a server to do what each client can do on its own? Aim.exe is FREE. Hell, I'll give you a copy.
MrSndrs
I've been running Windows2000 on my desktop for months and I've had fewer problems than I can count on one hand. Even when applications crash badly they rarely take the OS along with them. Contrast this with Windows9x, which crashed 4 times the day I pulled my PC out of the box. It is obvious that every Slashdot poster who bashes Windows2000 on the grounds of stability has never used it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Linux fan. I'm posting this from a Mozilla0.8 nightly build on Debian. But it took me weeks to get Linux (and its apps) up and running the way I wanted it. Windows2000 I installed in a day and had configured the next day. There's a lot to be said for Windows2000 usability (which is a valid concern with XP). Reliability, though, is a non-issue.
MrSndrs
The iMac was what brought Apple back into the position of being a real competitor in the industry, and it did so by winning consumers - not businesses. The iMac sold well despite the availability of much more powerful PCs at lower prices because of its aesthetics and reputation as easy to use. Consumers eat up that kind of stuff, and Apple took advantage of that.
You can argue that the G3/G4 processors aren't nesesarily slower at lower clockspeeds than Intel chips, but for average Joe Consumer, bigger numbers mean better. And the reality is that average folks bought iMacs they thought were less powerful than comparable PCs becuase of reputation and aesthetics.
Apple knows that OS X is more than eye candy, and I know it too, but average Joe Consumer doesn't. He just hears numbers and dollar signs and sees pretty colors and ease of use. And he'll still buy it. I think Apple's consumer hardware business is safe.
On the business-end, adoption of OS X depends on application support. If you think any professional wants to run Photoshop in emulation, you probably aren't a professional yourself. Businesses won't switch until the apps are there, and from the looks of it, the ports are taking forever even when focusing on PowerPC. To expect the conversion to OS X and to x86 is ludicrous. No company would even try that - its not feasible in a reasonable timetable.
I think OS X for x86 would be very cool. And I think Apple could release it without jeopardizing their hardware business because I don't see it ever becoming a feasible platform. Cult-following? Maybe. Tinkerers? Probably. Real market? No.
Justin says wrong things.
The Register has more on this, but their info seems to differ from the above. They imply that this is merely a wireless networking framework that will use cellular and Digital TV bandwidth. In other words, its not a phone or a TV or a combination of the two. But I guess the potential's there. Maybe. Please.