I just got through downloading StarOffice a couple days ago, I am posting from the StarOffice web browser which is at least 100 thousand times prettier than Netscape. What I want to know is what the new version is going to offer that everyone is so excited about? I haven't checked the Sun site, but I a very impressed with Star Office already. I would give anything if Sun would make an Star Office into a full Window Manager I love the look and feel. Yeah yeah I know it looks like Windows and that is bad, but I still really like it. (although I really really would like multiple desktops) I'd bet Windows users wouldn't know the difference, it would really help people switch to Linux. I would also like to have the ability to change colors, I HATE grey!!
Alot of people over the years have predicted that the internet is a fad and will die out. Most of them people have already ate thier words, and maybe rightfully so. I think the internet will be around for ever. What I doubt though is that it will continue to grow. We will never have a reality such as in Star Trek, or some of the worlds the Sliders go to. We will never have a world with terminals in every room of every building hooked up to the internet linking the whole world. I say this because all these internet patents are scaring off lots of people that could be developing the websites that would make such a thing feasible. Linking the world together is nothing without the content that would be needed. Think about it, there is no more one-click shopping without a royalty be paid to Amazon, so E-commerce sites will have to do things the longer, harder way. If they do not do it the hard way they will have to develop a new concept which if history shows they will run out and patent and leave the followers in the same boat. The bottom line is for all these internet businesses is all about the Benjamins, and the world has never benefited from greed alone. These people claim to be "innovators" of the internet, as far as I'm concerned they are all just a bunch of greedy bastards holding the world back.
Hmmm, Linux the official OS of a Communist country? Kinda gives new meaning to the name "Red" Hat doesn't it:) I guess the Chinese decided that there was only room for one tyrannical superpower in thier country and decided to boot Gates and his legion of goons out. hehe But kidding aside, I remember reading in Popular Mechanics or some such magazine that Mexico was already using Linux/Gnome in thier schools because Windows was to expensive. There have also been countless reports of branches in our (US) government making the switch to Linux. This has to be a major blow to MS as government buy lots and lots of computers, MS will lose lots of money on Windows Licensing.
Wasn't UNIX around before DOS (or around about the time that DOS) became popular. Yeah I know they BOUGHT DOS and not wrote it, but they brought to the world cryptic filenames, single tasking OS's, later when windows first came out they gave us inferior multi-tasking, computers that have to be rebooted for a change in mouse position to take effect, and various other not so nice things. Later with Win95 they finally got multi-tasking half right, and you know what Windows2000 is going to support 2 processors! Surely this is an innovation as the competition has been supporting four or eight for years now. Now if MS could just learn to innovate "Forward". To paraphrase the always quotable "Chong":
"Just remember, Bill, 'D' is that way (points forward)"
Bill seems to be getting his d's and r's confused.:)
Yes there are commercial UNICES and most of them have great hardware support. But when is the last time you seen Quake, Unreal, Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Heroes of Might and Magic, Heavy Gear, etc. running on HP-UX. The fact of the matter is Linux is making it onto the desktop. Projects like KDE and Gnome are making it happen even quicker. Linux would be ALOT more practical for example if we could get the shockwave plugin, or a quicktime one. But for that we need commercial support, not from the companies that make/distribute the OS but from third parties. THAT is what MS is keeping out of our reach. You talk about ferraris and 18 wheelers but the thing is Linux is neither. Linux is more like a Mustang or a Diesel Dodge RAM. Built solid, and runs fast/pulls hard. Windows on the other hand is a Yugo. Great grocery getter if you have a cell phone to call the tow truck everytime it breaks down on you.
You defend Microsoft by saying that everyone should use Windows because Linux is hard. Don't you realize that if it weren't for the monopoly then Linux might have the commercial support to make it easier? Just look how far it's come in terms of usability with Corel, Caldera, and RedHat. They've all made very easy installs. It it had the big support from the beginning then it would be far easier to use and more hardware would work on it.
I wasn't reffering merely to the demo. I have seen video of a fighting game where not only the fighters but all of the spectators are polygon characters. I have seen video of what looks to be grand turismo 2000 (or grand turismo 1 backward compatiblity) I have seen crash bandicoot and various other games as well. I don't know what the actual games will look like in real life play but I do know that the numbers on the sony are far higher than the numbers on the GeForce. Not to mention that by the time MS gets the x-box on the market whatever video card is in it will be obsolete. So I could have a 400mhz console with a Geforce 256 for $300 or $400 or I could shell out $200 and get a GeForce 512 for my computer? The nature of x86 and its related components is that it is obsolete almost as soon as you get it. Bringing this type of technology into a new platform will take too long. I think they will be stuck in a perpetual state of catch-up just while waiting to release it.
PSX does fine on a 33mhz processor. The thing you have to remember is that the X-box is going to be x86 powered. x86 is great for home use but it is not custom made for gaming like the other console's hardware is. 500mhz is not overkill in fact it is probably underkill. I haven't seen my 400mhz do anything remotely as cool as the PSX2
First of all Video game consoles are HARDWARE. Sony is and always has been a HARDWARE manufacturer. MS is a SOFTWARE, or more commonly BLOATWARE manufacturer. Sony had an edge the MS didn't. Secondly, I've seen the movies for the PS2, I've seen the screenshots for the PS2 and if it is slower than a high end computer then somebody needs to tell my VoodooII 400mhz. Granted the X-Box will be more high-end than my computer and the GeForce is an awesome card, but anyone who has seen the movies has been blown away and will tell you right here and right now x86 geforce can't hang
Why is it bad business to charge fees to developers? Do you think for one minute that they can make that playstation for $100. It is common knowledge (or so I thought) in the gaming industry that the companies take a loss on the hardware and make up for it in licensing. The X-Box is going to be horribly expensive and remain horribly expensive without massive revenue coming in from developers. Especially with all third party hardware there's going to be a middle man fee. When the big three lower the prices on their systems and start taking a loss M$ won't be able to to it. We'll see just how long shitty overpriced products last in the gaming industry then.
Microsoft is ruthless, but as I said (or maybe I didn't) but they do their ruthlessnes in the back. MS always does all of their sleezy underhanding tactics behind the back os the consumer and pretends to be the innocent company when somebody does them wrong. If they get upset over "Where would you like to go tommorow" then they are in for the shock of their life when they go up against a company that won't roll over and play dead, but instead will go for the throat I for one highly doubt that SEGA, Sony or Nintendo are so much as breaking a sweat. This so called X-box doesn't seem to be getting that much attention in the video game circles and I know people dieing to get their hands on games like Grand Turismo 2000. In fact everyone I know is anxiously awaited the arrival of the PS2. And lest you think this is MS's first attempt at the video game market I was just looking at an issue of "gamepro" from 1997. Apparently MS wanted to "innovate" the arcade industry by created a Win95 based arcade that would allow arcade owners to switch games easily and cheaply. I guess somebody must have told them that NeoGeo had been doing that for quite some time (a console system in an arcade box for easy and cheap switching) I also presume that arcade owners didn't take to the idea after repeated "This program has caused a general protection fault in module 340342:3428. Please reboot"'s had customers demanding their money back.
All MS hating aside, have you seen the movies and screenshot for PSX2? An Intel/AMD box with even an nVidia card doesn't stand a rats chance in hell of competing with the purpose built cpu of the PSX2. There has also been talk about MS maybe not required licenses by developers to create games making it more attractive to developers. But I don't think that will sway anyone. SEGA, Sony, and Nintendo have already made a name for themselves. They ARE the big three. Sony IMHO got really lucky when they entered the market successfully and they are a hardware company. I am a video gamer and I can tell you that new companies entering the field don't do to well. Look at all the failures, there are quite a few systems that never went anywere. There is a fan loyalty, I remember very heated discussions of SNES vs. Genesis. Neither side was likely to switch to a third competitor. Now there is the Sony vs Nintendo debate, and soon to be SEGA vs Sony vs Nintendo. But perhaps the biggest reason MS will fail is because MS doesn't have the balls to compete like video games companies do. When the german Linux site posted the phrase "Where do you want to go tommorow?" MS threatened to sue. How are they going to react when Crash Bandicoot is standing outside their Redmond offices saying "Hey Billy boy! Get your little geeky butt out here and fight like a man!" or what are they going to do when Sonic the Hedgehog starts showing up at there golf games? The bottom line is MS wins by stabbing people silently in the back. Video game company go at each other tooth and nail and their not likely to stop just because the cowards at MS don't like it when people call them names.
I asked this in a previous topic and didn't get an answer. I am probably the biggest Linux fan out there, (I even played with the idea of getting some investment money and starting a linux game company. I want Motocross, and Drag Racing and Football, and all those things that only programmers working 60-70 hours a week can crank out. Man the games I could design if I had the programmers and artists to create them for me. *sigh* but I got scared off by horror storiese of venture capital firms and it seems to be illegal to collect money from private investors, as if most Linux users would give money to a commercial upstart, (although my game library is and always would be free, it'd be nice to have an Open Souurce commercially developed game library, no?) Oh sorry, got distracted for a minute. Where was I? Oh yeah, I am probably the biggest linux fan out there but my guess is I didn't get a response to the Quake/Unreal questions because all the "everything must be open source or suffer the death of a thousand theives" people just read the comment then shit their pants when they realized they've spent their whole Linux using life in hypocracy. Well, I probably just earned my first -1. Oh well. I gots to say what I feel guys, sorry
You seem to be missing the point. If Linux didn't exist then BSD (one flavor or another) would have been the choice of GNU. BSD would be in the big time now. I was going to switch from Windows if it meant writing my own damn OS, believe me I would have found BSD. You seem to be thinking along the Lines of what if right now we made Linux dissapear without taking into account the difference in the way things would have evolved. It's sorta like saying if MS never existed then 80% of the population would be happier. (uhh, wait a minute. What I meant to say is that 80% of the population wouldn't be using computers. Where did I ever equate MS with unhappiness;-) But seriously if MS never existed neither would windows, but the 80% of the computer users that use windows, would have found another OS (and without DOS to slow things down computers would probably be alot better by now. Let's all bow our heads and pray for the day the MS stops "innovatin" so we can finally move ahead for once.)
Well, the Halloween documents talk about how they MUST destroy Open Source. Linux was a huge part of thier case that they have competetion and they felt the need to rig NT vs. Linux tests and put up a Linux myths page. They felt the need to do a Linux desktop usability test. And for some reason there is no IE for Linux even though it does exist for non-intel UNIXES, there is no NetShow player for Linux even though there was before Linux got big. In fact Linux doesn't have any MS software (thank god) As bad as they want the monopoly in the browser war why no IE? I'll tell you why, because they want the monopoly in the OS war more. Why release software for an OS that is bound to steall market share from you? You don't see the doing that to defend against AmigaOS do you? Maybe you don't read the technology news very often, but I assure you,
I know I really shouldn't carry this thread any further becuase this guy is an obvious troll, but am I the only one that sees the connection between staring at a windows box all day and incoherent speech, bad grammor, lack of conversation skills, etc. etc. etc. ?
And since I seriously doubt there'd be a free Unix as viable as Linux is right now
Have you ever used FreeBSD? I'd say it can hold it's own against Linux, maybe even better if it had all of its developers and all the Linux developers. As far as linux not existing I have responded to that once maybe twice already, just read my response deeper in this tread if you care to carry the subject further
oh my god, tux the penguin... sucks , damn you linux people piss me off, someone needs to mollest and murder tux, and burn his lifeless body
So you're into S&M Bestiality huh? That might explain your mood. Try a women. or at least a RealDoll. As for windows users being the smart ones, I have seen two big Windows advocates here. One (you) who obviously gets his vocabulary from movies his Mommy and Daddy shouldn't be letting him watch, and the other who didin't know that Linux had a GUI. Oh gee, your intelligence astounds me. Can you do long division and everything?
I understand what you are saying, but think about it, when was DOS ever open sourced? or Solaris (now doesn't count) or Windows? True it wouldn't be the Linux we know today, but Linus is a damn talented coder, whose to say he wouldn't have found some sort of commercial backing like the other big OS's did, or maybe he would have happened along some guy with a 128bit computer in development that needed a good OS. Who knows? We can't really say for sure where it would be. For all practically purposes DOS should have failed. It was inferior to UNIX by leaps and bounds, and everyone that used computers back then was computer literate, they didn't need an easier way, but Bill bought DOS for $50,000 or so and sold it to IBM? Why? We'll never know. Could Linux have gotten the same break, well we'll never know that either. But it is possible.
RedHat made something like $4.7 million in a year, alot of of people (myself) included aren't getting Linux for free. I don't think it's freeness is the issue either. If GNU supported it and ported the development tools over, and then someone ported an X-server (pretty big if's I guess for a no-name OS from a finnish colleg student) but if that happened then I think Linux would still have taken off, but instead of Open Source riding on the back of Linux, Linux would have been riding on the back of Open Source. If it weren't free the Linus would have been the one making $4.7 million dollars in a year (although it would have taken longer than what it has) and he could pay programmers to hack it full time. Or indeed if it was a commercial venture he would probably brought is some coding parnters from the beginning. Just look at BeOS, it's doing fairly well for itself, and it is a small commercial OS. Another point to look at is that alot of companies for some reason won't use Open Source software, if Linux was commercial, but cheaper than the other UNIX OS's then maybe it would have grown more in the corporate world. All of this is very speculative though and it is really hard to say which direction Linux would have went, but I think just saying it wouldn't be anywhere might be a hasty decision.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is what the new version is going to offer that everyone is so excited about? I haven't checked the Sun site, but I a very impressed with Star Office already. I would give anything if Sun would make an Star Office into a full Window Manager I love the look and feel. Yeah yeah I know it looks like Windows and that is bad, but I still really like it. (although I really really would like multiple desktops) I'd bet Windows users wouldn't know the difference, it would really help people switch to Linux. I would also like to have the ability to change colors, I HATE grey!!
Because "C Minutes" or "Z Hours" wouldn't make sense? hehe :)
What I doubt though is that it will continue to grow. We will never have a reality such as in Star Trek, or some of the worlds the Sliders go to. We will never have a world with terminals in every room of every building hooked up to the internet linking the whole world.
I say this because all these internet patents are scaring off lots of people that could be developing the websites that would make such a thing feasible. Linking the world together is nothing without the content that would be needed. Think about it, there is no more one-click shopping without a royalty be paid to Amazon, so E-commerce sites will have to do things the longer, harder way. If they do not do it the hard way they will have to develop a new concept which if history shows they will run out and patent and leave the followers in the same boat.
The bottom line is for all these internet businesses is all about the Benjamins, and the world has never benefited from greed alone. These people claim to be "innovators" of the internet, as far as I'm concerned they are all just a bunch of greedy bastards holding the world back.
I guess the Chinese decided that there was only room for one tyrannical superpower in thier country and decided to boot Gates and his legion of goons out. hehe
But kidding aside, I remember reading in Popular Mechanics or some such magazine that Mexico was already using Linux/Gnome in thier schools because Windows was to expensive. There have also been countless reports of branches in our (US) government making the switch to Linux. This has to be a major blow to MS as government buy lots and lots of computers, MS will lose lots of money on Windows Licensing.
Now if MS could just learn to innovate "Forward". To paraphrase the always quotable "Chong":
"Just remember, Bill, 'D' is that way (points forward)"
Bill seems to be getting his d's and r's confused. :)
Linux would be ALOT more practical for example if we could get the shockwave plugin, or a quicktime one. But for that we need commercial support, not from the companies that make/distribute the OS but from third parties. THAT is what MS is keeping out of our reach.
You talk about ferraris and 18 wheelers but the thing is Linux is neither. Linux is more like a Mustang or a Diesel Dodge RAM. Built solid, and runs fast/pulls hard. Windows on the other hand is a Yugo. Great grocery getter if you have a cell phone to call the tow truck everytime it breaks down on you.
I wasn't reffering merely to the demo. I have seen video of a fighting game where not only the fighters but all of the spectators are polygon characters. I have seen video of what looks to be grand turismo 2000 (or grand turismo 1 backward compatiblity) I have seen crash bandicoot and various other games as well.
I don't know what the actual games will look like in real life play but I do know that the numbers on the sony are far higher than the numbers on the GeForce. Not to mention that by the time MS gets the x-box on the market whatever video card is in it will be obsolete. So I could have a 400mhz console with a Geforce 256 for $300 or $400 or I could shell out $200 and get a GeForce 512 for my computer? The nature of x86 and its related components is that it is obsolete almost as soon as you get it. Bringing this type of technology into a new platform will take too long. I think they will be stuck in a perpetual state of catch-up just while waiting to release it.
PSX does fine on a 33mhz processor. The thing you have to remember is that the X-box is going to be x86 powered. x86 is great for home use but it is not custom made for gaming like the other console's hardware is. 500mhz is not overkill in fact it is probably underkill. I haven't seen my 400mhz do anything remotely as cool as the PSX2
Secondly, I've seen the movies for the PS2, I've seen the screenshots for the PS2 and if it is slower than a high end computer then somebody needs to tell my VoodooII 400mhz. Granted the X-Box will be more high-end than my computer and the GeForce is an awesome card, but anyone who has seen the movies has been blown away and will tell you right here and right now x86 geforce can't hang
Why is it bad business to charge fees to developers? Do you think for one minute that they can make that playstation for $100. It is common knowledge (or so I thought) in the gaming industry that the companies take a loss on the hardware and make up for it in licensing. The X-Box is going to be horribly expensive and remain horribly expensive without massive revenue coming in from developers. Especially with all third party hardware there's going to be a middle man fee. When the big three lower the prices on their systems and start taking a loss M$ won't be able to to it. We'll see just how long shitty overpriced products last in the gaming industry then.
I for one highly doubt that SEGA, Sony or Nintendo are so much as breaking a sweat. This so called X-box doesn't seem to be getting that much attention in the video game circles and I know people dieing to get their hands on games like Grand Turismo 2000. In fact everyone I know is anxiously awaited the arrival of the PS2.
And lest you think this is MS's first attempt at the video game market I was just looking at an issue of "gamepro" from 1997. Apparently MS wanted to "innovate" the arcade industry by created a Win95 based arcade that would allow arcade owners to switch games easily and cheaply. I guess somebody must have told them that NeoGeo had been doing that for quite some time (a console system in an arcade box for easy and cheap switching) I also presume that arcade owners didn't take to the idea after repeated "This program has caused a general protection fault in module 340342:3428. Please reboot"'s had customers demanding their money back.
There has also been talk about MS maybe not required licenses by developers to create games making it more attractive to developers. But I don't think that will sway anyone. SEGA, Sony, and Nintendo have already made a name for themselves. They ARE the big three. Sony IMHO got really lucky when they entered the market successfully and they are a hardware company. I am a video gamer and I can tell you that new companies entering the field don't do to well. Look at all the failures, there are quite a few systems that never went anywere. There is a fan loyalty, I remember very heated discussions of SNES vs. Genesis. Neither side was likely to switch to a third competitor. Now there is the Sony vs Nintendo debate, and soon to be SEGA vs Sony vs Nintendo.
But perhaps the biggest reason MS will fail is because MS doesn't have the balls to compete like video games companies do. When the german Linux site posted the phrase "Where do you want to go tommorow?" MS threatened to sue. How are they going to react when Crash Bandicoot is standing outside their Redmond offices saying "Hey Billy boy! Get your little geeky butt out here and fight like a man!" or what are they going to do when Sonic the Hedgehog starts showing up at there golf games? The bottom line is MS wins by stabbing people silently in the back. Video game company go at each other tooth and nail and their not likely to stop just because the cowards at MS don't like it when people call them names.
Oh yeah, I am probably the biggest linux fan out there but my guess is I didn't get a response to the Quake/Unreal questions because all the "everything must be open source or suffer the death of a thousand theives" people just read the comment then shit their pants when they realized they've spent their whole Linux using life in hypocracy.
Well, I probably just earned my first -1. Oh well. I gots to say what I feel guys, sorry
You seem to be thinking along the Lines of what if right now we made Linux dissapear without taking into account the difference in the way things would have evolved. It's sorta like saying if MS never existed then 80% of the population would be happier. (uhh, wait a minute. What I meant to say is that 80% of the population wouldn't be using computers. Where did I ever equate MS with unhappiness
But seriously if MS never existed neither would windows, but the 80% of the computer users that use windows, would have found another OS (and without DOS to slow things down computers would probably be alot better by now. Let's all bow our heads and pray for the day the MS stops "innovatin" so we can finally move ahead for once.)
Well, the Halloween documents talk about how they MUST destroy Open Source. Linux was a huge part of thier case that they have competetion and they felt the need to rig NT vs. Linux tests and put up a Linux myths page. They felt the need to do a Linux desktop usability test. And for some reason there is no IE for Linux even though it does exist for non-intel UNIXES, there is no NetShow player for Linux even though there was before Linux got big. In fact Linux doesn't have any MS software (thank god) As bad as they want the monopoly in the browser war why no IE? I'll tell you why, because they want the monopoly in the OS war more. Why release software for an OS that is bound to steall market share from you?
You don't see the doing that to defend against AmigaOS do you? Maybe you don't read the technology news very often, but I assure you,
I know I really shouldn't carry this thread any further becuase this guy is an obvious troll, but am I the only one that sees the connection between staring at a windows box all day and incoherent speech, bad grammor, lack of conversation skills, etc. etc. etc. ?
Have you ever used FreeBSD? I'd say it can hold it's own against Linux, maybe even better if it had all of its developers and all the Linux developers.
As far as linux not existing I have responded to that once maybe twice already, just read my response deeper in this tread if you care to carry the subject further
So you're into S&M Bestiality huh? That might explain your mood. Try a women. or at least a RealDoll.
As for windows users being the smart ones, I have seen two big Windows advocates here. One (you) who obviously gets his vocabulary from movies his Mommy and Daddy shouldn't be letting him watch, and the other who didin't know that Linux had a GUI. Oh gee, your intelligence astounds me. Can you do long division and everything?
True it wouldn't be the Linux we know today, but Linus is a damn talented coder, whose to say he wouldn't have found some sort of commercial backing like the other big OS's did, or maybe he would have happened along some guy with a 128bit computer in development that needed a good OS. Who knows?
We can't really say for sure where it would be. For all practically purposes DOS should have failed. It was inferior to UNIX by leaps and bounds, and everyone that used computers back then was computer literate, they didn't need an easier way, but Bill bought DOS for $50,000 or so and sold it to IBM? Why? We'll never know. Could Linux have gotten the same break, well we'll never know that either. But it is possible.
If GNU supported it and ported the development tools over, and then someone ported an X-server (pretty big if's I guess for a no-name OS from a finnish colleg student) but if that happened then I think Linux would still have taken off, but instead of Open Source riding on the back of Linux, Linux would have been riding on the back of Open Source.
If it weren't free the Linus would have been the one making $4.7 million dollars in a year (although it would have taken longer than what it has) and he could pay programmers to hack it full time. Or indeed if it was a commercial venture he would probably brought is some coding parnters from the beginning. Just look at BeOS, it's doing fairly well for itself, and it is a small commercial OS.
Another point to look at is that alot of companies for some reason won't use Open Source software, if Linux was commercial, but cheaper than the other UNIX OS's then maybe it would have grown more in the corporate world.
All of this is very speculative though and it is really hard to say which direction Linux would have went, but I think just saying it wouldn't be anywhere might be a hasty decision.