Possibly, but not with Compiz or KWin. Believe me, I've tried every combination of sync and rate in both the compositor and driver and, until GNOME3, none of it worked unless compositing was turned off.
Watch the "elephant charge" or "crack of doom" scenes in Return of the King. It's gotten better over the years, but this is the first time I've seen video playback on Linux on par, well, with what Mac OS has been doing for a decade. I don't know what the Mutter devs did, but they did it right.
Interestingly, nVidia is actually pretty good at fixing bugs.
GNOME3 had a nasty corrupt-on-resume problem with the nVidia driver, and since a) laptops are slept and resumed often, b) nouveau has no power management to speak of, which is kinda important in a laptop, and c) the GNOME devs had no intention of fixing the problem anytime soon, it was nice that d) nVidia fixed it in a month. They're pretty good with other bugs, too.
The nice thing is that, with GNOME3 and nVidia, I have the first instance of tear-free video playback on a Linux desktopin, wel, ever*.
I don't know it AMD/ATI better now, but Catalyst used to be brutal for bug fixes. I think they're better. I also don't mean to impugn Nouveau as they've done great work with what they've had, but I do value battery life and not cooking my thighs.
* without turning off compositing and partying like it's 1999.
You know, if RIM would just say "This is what's on-deck for the PlayBook, and this is when we'll deliver it" I'd feel a lot better. Right now, it's all up in the air and customers---enterprise or consumer---don't know what to do or plan for. Unlike, say, Apple, who has DR releases of iOS well in advance, the PlayBook is a big, fat mystery.
If I knew the device was going to be usable in a month or two I'd probably not be eBay'ing my testing sample. As it stands, I don't know and I certainly won't buy a batch of them on faith that they might get better. I imagine that for developers the situation is similar, and that most are holding back waiting for the Android and BB environments.
That said, Balsille was saying "60 days" for native PIM apps more than 60 days ago. That's not good.
BES Express is not "effectively free", as it requires extra hardware to run on, and the server admins did NOT like the idea of adding it on to the existing server as-is.
I suppose that depends on your environment. Most small shops use SBS, and the recommendation is to install it on the same box. Larger shops probably use VMs anyway (or should) and isolating BES from Exchange/Domino/Zimbra/Whatever is a given that way, and the cost of a server that meets the BES requirements is not much.
Because that's not what BES does. BES is a way to manage, provision and sync BlackBerries; you can use BES to connect to Google Apps. ActiveSync is equivalent to BES. Google Apps is about equivalent to Exchange or Domino (sorta, kinda, maybe).
It's a semantic distinction, but an important one. Apps and Exchange are the what, BES and ActiveSync are the how.
My view is they are very much the same if not identical
The iPhone is 960-by-640 at 330ppi. The Torch/9800 is about on par with the iPhone 3 at 480x360, and isn't nearly as bright. See this article. Note the icon comparison.
If you can't tell the difference, you must need glasses for close work.
Why do people say the browser is poor?
Because it is. Can you pinch/zoom without it stuttering? Does it display the checkboard often? Is to slow to go back and forth? The answer to all of these is: No, Yes and Yes. It works well compared to the OS5 browser, but it's just not as good as the iPhone or Android ones. A lot of this is due to the Torch being significantly underpowered versus the iPhone (which is inexcusable given that it came out slightly after the iPhone did and evidence of the what this article is supposing about Laziridis' lack of understanding.
Now, it's not a bad browser. It's pretty good, in fact. If you hadn't seen the iPhone, it would be brilliant and the optical pad is a nice touch for precision work (and something that Playbook could have used!) but it doesn't match the experience of the 3GS, which was over a year old at the time, let alone the 4.
BES is nothing like Google Apps. They're complimentary technologies, but they don't do the same thing at all. You may as well say Microsoft SQL Server is easily matched by Apache.
For collaboration, this isn't an issue. ActiveSync can be secured via SSL, and access to apps and services can be done over VPN.
For device management, well, that's where RIM still holds an significant advantage. If you do the policies right, losing a BlackBerry is a non-issue. iPhone? Not so much. Android? Ummm....
It's not MAPI, it's ActiveSync. And it's more than just sync, it's policy enforcement, device management and app distribution. Currently, RIM's devices do this best, but Apple is not far behind. Android devices are, but that's because they're a fragmented mess. I'd also add that "Out of the box" sync assumes your IT department allows the service and some of the security concerns it entails, whereas chances are most companies of any size have a BES Server already, and BES does more than ActiveSync.
Now, that said, Apple (because the own the ecosystem) could probably provide most, if not all, of what BES provides without a whole lot of effort, whereas RIM is proving itself challenged to offer what Apple does in terms of user experience.
Why would you use OWA (or ActiveSync) on a BlackBerry? BES Express is effectively free, and if you don't want to use BES why would you get a BlackBerry in the first place?
Your Torch's screen is not identical to the iPhone 4. I have a Torch and my wife has an iPhone 4. They're not in the same league, not even close.
Now, I'll grant the Torch has a nice keyboard (not as good as the Bold 9000) but it really isn't the same class of phone: the camera isn't as good, regardless of the pixel count, the browsing experience is poor and the app ecosystem pretty sparse. What it does, though, it does really well. I'd love to see this form factor with better hardware and an (updated, feature-complete) version the PlayBook's OS.
To be fair, most people with BlackBerries use either BIS or BES. If BIS (or one of the BIS plugins for Gmail, Hotmail, etc) it just works.
If BES, it's someone else's problem and it just works, even to the point of password management, user ID changes, etc, being total non-issues. ActiveSync or OWA integration aren't as capable as BES. He's definitely not "talking out his ass" there.
Where it falls down is simplicity: BES is not as easy as just punching a hole in your firewall and letting people connect. You do need to know what you're doing. At least, though, with BES Express it's not particularly expensive and can run on the same server. Unless you need the features BES offers (corporate app store, for example) for most businesses BES-X is fine.
This is true, but they problem is revenue. How do they do that without slitting their throat? Apple tried and it nearly killed them; it did kill Palm.
I don't think they can, not unless they can find a way to make their software essential. Something like a secure BlackBerry Balance environment for the iPhone and Android might work (something that allows secure access to corporate resources, can be removed easily) along with porting BBM. Do you really think Apple or Google will allow such a move?
I don't think so. Have you actually looked at the new system they have for the Playbook? It is really nice. Screens scroll smoothly. It is simple and straightforward. From a developer standpoint, you have the option of writing in Flash, or in native C++, or in Blackberry Java, or in Android Java.
Yes, but your users don't have the option of running any of that because RIM hasn't released any of those environments, nor have they provided any hint as to when they might.
I have a PlayBook. It's pretty slick at it's core, but when it has next to no apps, can't do autocorrect, has all sorts of bizarre interface inconsistencies and stalls mysteriously when browsing the web (no, not because of Flash, which is a non-feature, IMO). This article is dead-bang-on in it's analysis of RIM's problems lying with Laziridis' engineering-induced blindness, and the PlayBook is an example of that mindset: hits all the features, has an amazing foundation but is hideously crippled in ways that matter to average people.
When people talk up the PlayBook, it's always "It runs Flash" (yes, it does; it does so better than any other tablet, which is like the old "winning a race at the special olympics" joke) or "It multitasks" (yes, it does, but you're challenged to find more than four apps worth running, and even then the memory management will fall down). That you can't type on it, that it's impossble to mark text, that it has no email client (and Bridge is a glitchy bastard) tell you everything you need to know about how RIM and it's people don't think about what actual consumers want.
It kills me, really. I love the form factor---I wish there was a 7" iPad---and the gestures are brilliant (even though they're not consistent across all apps), but RIM needs to fix this think fast. The problem is that I think they've already moved onto the OS7 phones, which in turn are evolutionary dead ends because a few months after that there's supposed to be QNX phones. I suppose, in a year, the PlayBook might be usable. Maybe.
Even Chrome allows some kind of policy enforcement and scripted installation.
If Mozilla is hell-bent on mimicking everything Google does, they could at least copy those two. I mean, there's only been bug/RFEs open for years for them.
We are "free" to do what we like in the U.S. and we don't have to funnel money to the music industry for data CD's in order to enjoy that "freedom".
No, you just get sued for infringement, whether you infringed or not. You also get laws that assume you're a criminal and lock down what you can and can't do with your devices and your content. He's right, that Canadian model really is better and could stand to be expanded. A pittance of a tax that lets you do what you want when you want without fear of corporate reprisal or legal roadblocks seems a fair trade.
It's like healthcare: the American model gives you notional freedom but costs more and delivers less at the end of the day. Meanwhile, the socialized systems cost less and deliver more with less pain.
Nah, Ubuntu only contributed polish, consistency, user experience and millions of desktop users. This was especially notable back when RedHat's workstation distribution was a small step above, say, OpenWindows or CDE. It's hard to appreciate it now, and it's possible they've since jumped the shark, but Ubuntu really changed the game.
Yes, Canonical didn't contribute as much code. RedHat and Novell didn't contribute much in the way of usability. They're complementary skillsets, and it's kind of sad how many "developers" don't recognize the value of the former.
(saying this as someone who's really enjoying GNOME 3)
Yes, by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittities, Bablylonians, Romans, Ottomans and so forth. Oh, wait, did you mean recently?
The point is, if we're going to let Israel (or the Palestinians) off the hook for what they're doing today because of what's been done to them in the past, we've got a long, long history to adjudicate. Possibly we could exclude the Inuit from having make reparations, but it's not clear yet.
Middle East history could best be described as "An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye....". At some point one hopes they're realize the current strategy is not working.
That's what I found as well. You could install it on Ubuntu, but it didn't really work well and much of what patches and packaging is done to make Ubuntu Ubuntu actually make matters worse. Fedora 15 was designed with GNOME3 from the get-go and it shows.
I can see what the point of Unity and GNOME 3's Shell are, and I think GNOME is a little closer to the mark, at least at this juncture. Both could learn from each other, as they have complementary strengths
I'd agree. Interestingly, I'm finding this with GNOME 3: it's surviving the "three week" test pretty well so far. I think it's the "interface gets the hell out of the way" factor, too: you end up working with apps and documents, not fussing with settings.**
The problem, if you can call it that, is that the distro of choice for GNOME3 (Fedora 15) makes it a little hard to get going out of the box. It's not by any means insurmountable, but it's a little harder than it should be as some things are missing entirely (an Office suite really ought to come preinstalled) and playing "find the repo/RPM" is a lot harder than "It's probably already there, and if not it's trivial to find a PPA" of Ubuntu.
I'm interested to see what, if anything, the Linux Mint folks will make of GNOME 3, and it's unfortunate that Ubuntu isn't going this route. It really is a good DE, and it would benefit from Canonical's (former, traditional) user interface polish.
** I find myself fussing with settings a lot in KDE, and more often than I'd like in Ubuntu 11.04.
You're correct on #1; it is an nVidia bug, but it should have been worked around by default as soon as it was discovered. Resizing the console window is not uncommon, and gnome-terminal doesn't do this. Admittedly this is as much the fault of the distro as it is of the DE developers.
#3 I didn't explain: yes, I know compositing gets turned off on battery, which is a good thing and something I wish GNOME did. The problem is that when you go back on AC power (and compositing is turned on) the panels don't go back until kdecache-user is cleared out. Stale tempfiles shouldn't really happen.
#4 is depressingly reproducible. General network filesystem weirdness abounds with Dolphin.
I haven't hit this kind of thing with GNOME, outside of Evolution (which is awful; anything that recommends daily backups of it's DB and metadata is something that has fundamental design problems***ahem***Nepomuk***ahem***Akonadi). Again, I can see where KDE is going, but I wish they'd spend a little more time on polish and a little less on pushing the envelope.
I'm hoping the Ubuntu/GNOME split results in Canonical getting the chance to polish KDE a little. I like KDE. I really want to use it, but it feels like a fight every time. Credit where credit's due: Canonical raised the bar for GNOME distributions' user experience.
1. Resize Konsole on Nvidia. Kernel panic. 2. Change network config, watch kded consume 100% CPU. 3. Unplug, go to power saving profile, watch panel lose transparency, have to clean out/var/tmp/kdecache 4. Connect to an SMB share with Dolphin and watch it crash every single time.
I found those in the first half-day with KDE4.6. And that's my best track record with KDE4.
It's interesting: KDE4 looks fundamentally strong, but seriously lacks polish and has serious usability trouble. GNOME gives the opposite impression: a kludge of technologies underneath the hood, but polished mercilessly. The two projects could really teach each other a a thing or two, and a combination of the best of each would give MacOS and Windows serious discomfort.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly, but not with Compiz or KWin. Believe me, I've tried every combination of sync and rate in both the compositor and driver and, until GNOME3, none of it worked unless compositing was turned off.
Watch the "elephant charge" or "crack of doom" scenes in Return of the King. It's gotten better over the years, but this is the first time I've seen video playback on Linux on par, well, with what Mac OS has been doing for a decade. I don't know what the Mutter devs did, but they did it right.
Interestingly, nVidia is actually pretty good at fixing bugs.
GNOME3 had a nasty corrupt-on-resume problem with the nVidia driver, and since a) laptops are slept and resumed often, b) nouveau has no power management to speak of, which is kinda important in a laptop, and c) the GNOME devs had no intention of fixing the problem anytime soon, it was nice that d) nVidia fixed it in a month. They're pretty good with other bugs, too.
The nice thing is that, with GNOME3 and nVidia, I have the first instance of tear-free video playback on a Linux desktopin, wel, ever*.
I don't know it AMD/ATI better now, but Catalyst used to be brutal for bug fixes. I think they're better. I also don't mean to impugn Nouveau as they've done great work with what they've had, but I do value battery life and not cooking my thighs.
* without turning off compositing and partying like it's 1999.
You can pass a vga= argument to the kernel on boot to allow modes other than 80x24. See this table for possibly modes.
You know, if RIM would just say "This is what's on-deck for the PlayBook, and this is when we'll deliver it" I'd feel a lot better. Right now, it's all up in the air and customers---enterprise or consumer---don't know what to do or plan for. Unlike, say, Apple, who has DR releases of iOS well in advance, the PlayBook is a big, fat mystery.
If I knew the device was going to be usable in a month or two I'd probably not be eBay'ing my testing sample. As it stands, I don't know and I certainly won't buy a batch of them on faith that they might get better. I imagine that for developers the situation is similar, and that most are holding back waiting for the Android and BB environments.
That said, Balsille was saying "60 days" for native PIM apps more than 60 days ago. That's not good.
I suppose that depends on your environment. Most small shops use SBS, and the recommendation is to install it on the same box. Larger shops probably use VMs anyway (or should) and isolating BES from Exchange/Domino/Zimbra/Whatever is a given that way, and the cost of a server that meets the BES requirements is not much.
Because that's not what BES does. BES is a way to manage, provision and sync BlackBerries; you can use BES to connect to Google Apps. ActiveSync is equivalent to BES. Google Apps is about equivalent to Exchange or Domino (sorta, kinda, maybe).
It's a semantic distinction, but an important one. Apps and Exchange are the what, BES and ActiveSync are the how.
The iPhone is 960-by-640 at 330ppi. The Torch/9800 is about on par with the iPhone 3 at 480x360, and isn't nearly as bright. See this article. Note the icon comparison.
If you can't tell the difference, you must need glasses for close work.
Because it is. Can you pinch/zoom without it stuttering? Does it display the checkboard often? Is to slow to go back and forth? The answer to all of these is: No, Yes and Yes. It works well compared to the OS5 browser, but it's just not as good as the iPhone or Android ones. A lot of this is due to the Torch being significantly underpowered versus the iPhone (which is inexcusable given that it came out slightly after the iPhone did and evidence of the what this article is supposing about Laziridis' lack of understanding.
Now, it's not a bad browser. It's pretty good, in fact. If you hadn't seen the iPhone, it would be brilliant and the optical pad is a nice touch for precision work (and something that Playbook could have used!) but it doesn't match the experience of the 3GS, which was over a year old at the time, let alone the 4.
BES is nothing like Google Apps. They're complimentary technologies, but they don't do the same thing at all. You may as well say Microsoft SQL Server is easily matched by Apache.
For collaboration, this isn't an issue. ActiveSync can be secured via SSL, and access to apps and services can be done over VPN.
For device management, well, that's where RIM still holds an significant advantage. If you do the policies right, losing a BlackBerry is a non-issue. iPhone? Not so much. Android? Ummm....
It's not MAPI, it's ActiveSync. And it's more than just sync, it's policy enforcement, device management and app distribution. Currently, RIM's devices do this best, but Apple is not far behind. Android devices are, but that's because they're a fragmented mess. I'd also add that "Out of the box" sync assumes your IT department allows the service and some of the security concerns it entails, whereas chances are most companies of any size have a BES Server already, and BES does more than ActiveSync.
Now, that said, Apple (because the own the ecosystem) could probably provide most, if not all, of what BES provides without a whole lot of effort, whereas RIM is proving itself challenged to offer what Apple does in terms of user experience.
Why would you use OWA (or ActiveSync) on a BlackBerry? BES Express is effectively free, and if you don't want to use BES why would you get a BlackBerry in the first place?
Your Torch's screen is not identical to the iPhone 4. I have a Torch and my wife has an iPhone 4. They're not in the same league, not even close.
Now, I'll grant the Torch has a nice keyboard (not as good as the Bold 9000) but it really isn't the same class of phone: the camera isn't as good, regardless of the pixel count, the browsing experience is poor and the app ecosystem pretty sparse. What it does, though, it does really well. I'd love to see this form factor with better hardware and an (updated, feature-complete) version the PlayBook's OS.
To be fair, most people with BlackBerries use either BIS or BES. If BIS (or one of the BIS plugins for Gmail, Hotmail, etc) it just works.
If BES, it's someone else's problem and it just works, even to the point of password management, user ID changes, etc, being total non-issues. ActiveSync or OWA integration aren't as capable as BES. He's definitely not "talking out his ass" there.
Where it falls down is simplicity: BES is not as easy as just punching a hole in your firewall and letting people connect. You do need to know what you're doing. At least, though, with BES Express it's not particularly expensive and can run on the same server. Unless you need the features BES offers (corporate app store, for example) for most businesses BES-X is fine.
This is true, but they problem is revenue. How do they do that without slitting their throat? Apple tried and it nearly killed them; it did kill Palm.
I don't think they can, not unless they can find a way to make their software essential. Something like a secure BlackBerry Balance environment for the iPhone and Android might work (something that allows secure access to corporate resources, can be removed easily) along with porting BBM. Do you really think Apple or Google will allow such a move?
Yes, but your users don't have the option of running any of that because RIM hasn't released any of those environments, nor have they provided any hint as to when they might.
I have a PlayBook. It's pretty slick at it's core, but when it has next to no apps, can't do autocorrect, has all sorts of bizarre interface inconsistencies and stalls mysteriously when browsing the web (no, not because of Flash, which is a non-feature, IMO). This article is dead-bang-on in it's analysis of RIM's problems lying with Laziridis' engineering-induced blindness, and the PlayBook is an example of that mindset: hits all the features, has an amazing foundation but is hideously crippled in ways that matter to average people.
When people talk up the PlayBook, it's always "It runs Flash" (yes, it does; it does so better than any other tablet, which is like the old "winning a race at the special olympics" joke) or "It multitasks" (yes, it does, but you're challenged to find more than four apps worth running, and even then the memory management will fall down). That you can't type on it, that it's impossble to mark text, that it has no email client (and Bridge is a glitchy bastard) tell you everything you need to know about how RIM and it's people don't think about what actual consumers want.
It kills me, really. I love the form factor---I wish there was a 7" iPad---and the gestures are brilliant (even though they're not consistent across all apps), but RIM needs to fix this think fast. The problem is that I think they've already moved onto the OS7 phones, which in turn are evolutionary dead ends because a few months after that there's supposed to be QNX phones. I suppose, in a year, the PlayBook might be usable. Maybe.
It reeks of Nokia, actually.
Even Chrome allows some kind of policy enforcement and scripted installation.
If Mozilla is hell-bent on mimicking everything Google does, they could at least copy those two. I mean, there's only been bug/RFEs open for years for them.
No, you just get sued for infringement, whether you infringed or not. You also get laws that assume you're a criminal and lock down what you can and can't do with your devices and your content. He's right, that Canadian model really is better and could stand to be expanded. A pittance of a tax that lets you do what you want when you want without fear of corporate reprisal or legal roadblocks seems a fair trade.
It's like healthcare: the American model gives you notional freedom but costs more and delivers less at the end of the day. Meanwhile, the socialized systems cost less and deliver more with less pain.
Qik can sorta-kinda do this. Gandhicam definitely can, and I'd like to see it ported to iOS.
Nah, Ubuntu only contributed polish, consistency, user experience and millions of desktop users. This was especially notable back when RedHat's workstation distribution was a small step above, say, OpenWindows or CDE. It's hard to appreciate it now, and it's possible they've since jumped the shark, but Ubuntu really changed the game.
Yes, Canonical didn't contribute as much code. RedHat and Novell didn't contribute much in the way of usability. They're complementary skillsets, and it's kind of sad how many "developers" don't recognize the value of the former.
(saying this as someone who's really enjoying GNOME 3)
Yes, by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittities, Bablylonians, Romans, Ottomans and so forth. Oh, wait, did you mean recently?
The point is, if we're going to let Israel (or the Palestinians) off the hook for what they're doing today because of what's been done to them in the past, we've got a long, long history to adjudicate. Possibly we could exclude the Inuit from having make reparations, but it's not clear yet.
Middle East history could best be described as "An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye....". At some point one hopes they're realize the current strategy is not working.
Word. Yum isn't bad (PackageKit is, though), but I find myself craving Aptitude and Synaptic
That's what I found as well. You could install it on Ubuntu, but it didn't really work well and much of what patches and packaging is done to make Ubuntu Ubuntu actually make matters worse. Fedora 15 was designed with GNOME3 from the get-go and it shows.
I can see what the point of Unity and GNOME 3's Shell are, and I think GNOME is a little closer to the mark, at least at this juncture. Both could learn from each other, as they have complementary strengths
I'd agree. Interestingly, I'm finding this with GNOME 3: it's surviving the "three week" test pretty well so far. I think it's the "interface gets the hell out of the way" factor, too: you end up working with apps and documents, not fussing with settings.**
The problem, if you can call it that, is that the distro of choice for GNOME3 (Fedora 15) makes it a little hard to get going out of the box. It's not by any means insurmountable, but it's a little harder than it should be as some things are missing entirely (an Office suite really ought to come preinstalled) and playing "find the repo/RPM" is a lot harder than "It's probably already there, and if not it's trivial to find a PPA" of Ubuntu.
I'm interested to see what, if anything, the Linux Mint folks will make of GNOME 3, and it's unfortunate that Ubuntu isn't going this route. It really is a good DE, and it would benefit from Canonical's (former, traditional) user interface polish.
** I find myself fussing with settings a lot in KDE, and more often than I'd like in Ubuntu 11.04.
You're correct on #1; it is an nVidia bug, but it should have been worked around by default as soon as it was discovered. Resizing the console window is not uncommon, and gnome-terminal doesn't do this. Admittedly this is as much the fault of the distro as it is of the DE developers.
#3 I didn't explain: yes, I know compositing gets turned off on battery, which is a good thing and something I wish GNOME did. The problem is that when you go back on AC power (and compositing is turned on) the panels don't go back until kdecache-user is cleared out. Stale tempfiles shouldn't really happen.
#4 is depressingly reproducible. General network filesystem weirdness abounds with Dolphin.
I haven't hit this kind of thing with GNOME, outside of Evolution (which is awful; anything that recommends daily backups of it's DB and metadata is something that has fundamental design problems***ahem***Nepomuk***ahem***Akonadi). Again, I can see where KDE is going, but I wish they'd spend a little more time on polish and a little less on pushing the envelope.
I'm hoping the Ubuntu/GNOME split results in Canonical getting the chance to polish KDE a little. I like KDE. I really want to use it, but it feels like a fight every time. Credit where credit's due: Canonical raised the bar for GNOME distributions' user experience.
1. Resize Konsole on Nvidia. Kernel panic. /var/tmp/kdecache
2. Change network config, watch kded consume 100% CPU.
3. Unplug, go to power saving profile, watch panel lose transparency, have to clean out
4. Connect to an SMB share with Dolphin and watch it crash every single time.
I found those in the first half-day with KDE4.6. And that's my best track record with KDE4.
It's interesting: KDE4 looks fundamentally strong, but seriously lacks polish and has serious usability trouble. GNOME gives the opposite impression: a kludge of technologies underneath the hood, but polished mercilessly. The two projects could really teach each other a a thing or two, and a combination of the best of each would give MacOS and Windows serious discomfort.