I doubt you've used XCode. Since XCode evolved from the NeXT IDE and toolkit you should recognize a lot of similarities with Visual Studio since the chances are excellent that Visual Studio picked up an awful lot from NeXT development environment. There are things beyond the Linux/MSWin world, y'know.
There are apparently two different ways to hate Microsoft. One is to hate them as this big evil monopolistic corporation. Another is to hate them as a company whose products are poor. I pretty much hate them because I think their products are terrible. I get zapped for saying this, probably by very defensive moderators, but most of the others here are from the Linux world, I'm assuming, and actually love Microsoft products because it's what they grew up with and that's what they know. To me, that's loving Microsoft.
But I'm OK with anyone who honestly openly loves Microsoft. I'm not positively impressed with those who love Microsoft but say they hate MS because it makes them cool to hate this ``evil monopoly''. If you really think Microsoft makes a product that others are incapable of besting, then what difference does it make if they're a monopoly other than that they, as a monopoly who makes what you think is the best product, can actually force the overall quality of the software world higher?
(One last clarification: when I said I was OK with people who openly love Microsoft, I meant personally, I didn't mean I was OK with their taste. I think their taste is bad. This is where the MS software loving mods zap me. OK mod, get your jollies and zap away. If this is Miguel de Icaza's day to moderate I'm definitely toast.)
According to Wikipedia, a modified version of lcc was used for compiling Quake III. It seems to me, this compiler would be far more maintainable, but for some reason, the world doesn't seem ready for literate programming.
A do-while loop in C and C++ must run at least once so that's not necessarily an unusual thing to have in a programming language. In pascal, if you don't want a loop to always execute at least once, then don't make it a for loop, make it a while loop. Unlike in C, a for loop in pascal isn't just a special case of a while loop. I guess that's why they're different languages. Like Steve Martin complained about the people of France not speaking English, ``it's like they have a different word for everything''.
As for the strict type checking, I don't know what kind of C++ compiler you use, but when I use a modern C++ compiler like a recent gcc, it's even picky about the friggin' ``void*'' type---the ``void*'' type, for cryin' out loud. It's not the compiler's fault, that's just how C++ is defined nowadays with respect to types. And you're complaining about pascal's strict type checking while saying how well C++ has served you? That's a real head scratcher to me.
Because that question doesn't seem to exclude non-commercial, non-graphical applications, or specify particular operating systems, my response might be painfully boring (and just as painfully obvious) to some people, but I would have to say the original Berkeley vi and, of course, c-kermit. Sorry vim people, but with GNU Emacs available for extensibility, I honestly don't know why you would want to bloat something as lean, mean and beautiful as vi.
I never thought there was a problem with using hydrogen as fuel, and I don't believe I ever heard or read that there was a problem there. My understanding is that there are other problems, one being able to safely carry the hydrogen in your vehicle. Another problem is being able to safely distribute the fuel. And so on. This article doesn't exactly sound like a breakthrough to me. Even if it sounds like it might allow the driver to transition from gas to H2, once they figure out how to solve the real problems, that feature will probably be lost.
What does Sir E.J. have against people putting together their own music? Just because he thinks they should go out and buy somebody's CD sold by a big record company instead? I thought pop music was about entertaining the people (``pop'' meaning popular, of course), not about making somebody else wealthy or wealthier. If people are entertaining themselves with their own music, isn't that more creative not less creative? And if someone is entertained by an amateur's YouTube video how is that necessarily less legitimately enriching than being entertained by a commercial artist?
As for going out and playing with other people, that's great, but who here imagines Sir E.J. goes to a local bar to jam with the average joe as the average joe's equal on Blue Mondays? When he plays with other people they're usually under his direction which, with respect to musical communication, means he's essentially playing by himself. So then he says he doesn't have an iPod or mobile phone as if that means no one else should have or even want them. Well, I don't have a mansion and wouldn't want one even if I could afford it so I don't think he should have one.
As for protesting versus blogging, couldn't you put together a much more coherent argument for your point of view in a blog than you could on a protest sign? And who ever said a blogger is less likely to protest than anyone else?---Oh yeah, Elton John did. That means a lot.
As for the blogger writing to say Sir E.J. has a good point, how many negatives is enough? ``Regardless'' is good enough for me, but if you're going to use ``irregardless'' why not use ``not irregardless'' or better yet ``not hardly irregardless''? Anyway, not hardly never irregardless of whether Sir E.J.'s music is good, bad, or indifferent, after all the attention his music got in the past, I think he's looking to blame something for the relative lack of attention his music gets now.
Running Mac OS X software on Linux doesn't alter the Mac buyer's perception of the Mac experience because they've got a Mac OS X box, not a Linux box. And hopefully the average person running Linux will be sophisticated enough to understand that running Mac OS X software through emulation isn't the Mac experience either. I don't think Apple has any reason to care one way or the other.
I've got to give the most weight to your second explanation. MS Windows has a heck of a lot more software than the Mac available for it so emulation for MS Windows is far more important. Also, MS Windows is more oriented towards a system where the more software, the merrier, as opposed to the Mac which is more oriented towards an integrated environment to make working with cameras, iPods, whatever-else, easier. Emulation could better take advantage of the MS Windows model than it could the Mac.
As for any Mac OS X project becoming popular with the Linux world, I don't think that's going to happen even if Apple promotes it, much less shuts it down. The hypothesis is that the Linux developer's perception of the commercial software world is MS Windows and their goal is to move closer to that. The evidence is that NeXT actually released the standards for what is now used by Apple for Mac OS X way before Microsoft released their standards for.Net and C#; NeXT developed the Objective-C front end for gcc which Apple still supports; and GNUStep is still far less popular than MS Windows flavored projects like Gnome and KDE. The free software world worked on its own C# front end for gcc even without Microsoft helping them out. And then there's Mono, DotGNU, and so on.
If anything, Apple has actually helped the free software world move closer to what they do with GUIs, libraries and languages, not forbidden it. Looking at the free software projects out there, it is apparent, if not obvious, that the free software world has overwhelmingly chosen the Microsoft flavor of GUIs and libraries.
Excellent points except the change mentioned in the comment to which you're replying is from StarOffice to Microsoft Office and they do want to change. You're making it sound like they're resistant to change when in fact you just don't like the change that they want. For as much as I dislike Microsoft Office, I dislike OpenOffice even more and can completely understand the average non-tech, non-OpenSource-fan point of view. Your apparent perception that there's no significant difference in quality between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice/StarOffice is somewhere between wishful thinking and delusion.
He used something like this as a premise for the movie ``Sabrina'' with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. At first I thought I was just going to have to suspend my disbelief because plastic from sugar seemed stupid. Now the only problem I had with the movie has been erased. The part where a gorgeous young woman goes for a dumpy looking nerdy old guy---now that I can buy.
I'm probably the billionth person to mention this, but I'll throw this out anyway. From the comment:
Indeed, it seems the preferred method for solving Mac computer problems is to buy your way out of it. Slow computer? Buy a new one. Want to convert a file? Buy a utility. Want to do simple tasks? Buy a commercial program. Peripherals don't work? Buy replacements.
This is what most people who use MS Windows do anyway because most people are not technical and don't want to waste their time tweaking things up. So if you're one of the majority, it's business as usual. And will you have to pay more for a nicer overall system like you would for a nicer car? Will one of two houses built exactly the same cost you much more if it's in a much prettier neighborhood? Yeah, I guess so. Life is just so unfair.
...but 256Kb/s still seems like a pretty low bit rate--especially when you're using a lossy codec.
Between lossy and non-lossy, wouldn't the same bit rate usually be worse for the non-lossy? Isn't the reason for lossy compression in the first place to able to use a lower bit rate to come close to what it takes takes non-lossy compression to do with a higher bit rate?
I see so much railing on Vista, but as someone who doesn't use MS Windows, I have no idea of what the problems are with Vista that's getting everyone so bent out of shape. Could someone please provide a link to a reliable list of problems with the new Vista? I've been reading what seems to be a lot of bitterness, but I just don't know what could be all that much worse about Vista than XP. I guess I'm also wondering if Microsoft might have actually made some improvements that maybe people feel uncomfortable with because it's different than what they're used to.
Mac OS X comes with a commercial grade IDE at no extra charge. You can buy an Intel compiler to plug into that IDE if you want your code to run faster, but in most cases that will unnecessary. Not only is Apple being friendly to third party developers on Mac OS X, but downright accommodating, again, at no extra charge. Quite frankly, in my experience, it's nicer than MS Windows as a development environment, and to get a comparable development for MS Windows for distributing your own binaries, you're going to have to pay some serious money.
When it came to everything you did to deal with different MS Word formats, I notice you didn't mention MacLinkPlus Deluxe so maybe you should have given that a try. Also, if the recipient of your document doesn't need to be editing that document, perhaps you should consider sending that person a PDF instead. A PDF is even more likely to display what you intended.
Also, there might be some versions hidden in your.doc file that you might not want your recipient to see anyway. Hey, it happens. And it might have already happened to your wife. Oops! Personally, I think people should avoid passing around.doc files as much as possible for reasons too numerous to mention and too obvious to bother.
I haven't really looked into the available options yet, but even coming in too unprepared to give you a point-by-point rebuttal, I see serious problems with what you're claiming.
Before there ever was an Active Directory, there was a YellowPages (later referred to as NIS) by Sun, and a netinfo by NeXT. Active Directory itself is a response to the implementations of software for maintaining users and groups on a network with LDAP-based systems. And because Active Directory refuses to play nice with other non-Microsoft platforms, it should be the last thing any reasonable person would ever consider using. If for some reason you would prefer commercial support for your network user directory, why wouldn't you use eDirectory from Novell since, like the free software implementations, eDirectory can work with Linux and Mac OS X clients as well as MS Windows clients? Active Directory has no benefit over other systems, and has a serious drawback with respect to networking with other platforms.
As for Linux/Unix thin clients, I remember years ago logging onto X terminals instead of onto workstations. The only reason the thin client went out is because PCs became so incredibly cheap. A Unix flavored thin client would be easy, but you would need a specific reason for doing it now that the expense of workstations is not really an issue anymore. And with Unix/X Windows ``thin clients'' you could log onto several different desktop sessions for a single user running at the same time. Even thinking of doing something like that with MS Windows is just crazy.
As for reaching Linux or Mac OS X desktops anywhere in the world, haven't you heard of VNC? I'm not putting in any links for it because there would just be too many. And there other things besides VNC but that's just a start. Apple also has its own proprietary software, Apple Remote Desktop, for doing the same thing. As for load balanced access, jeepers, where I work I can log onto a Linux cluster and it sends me to the most available node. Clusters are capable of load balancing, and you can cluster with both Linux and Mac OS X. Mac OS X makes it easy in simpler cases with Xgrid which comes with the server version of the OS. And just so you know, it isn't clients, thin or otherwise, that do load balancing, it's servers.
I don't have time to go over the rest of your letter, but it goes on and on, and on. Everything you've said can't be done on Linux/Unix or Mac OS X is already being done, and in every case better, cheaper, and first.
If Apple had been secretly developing a serious office suite (as opposed to iWork) for years, having learned from mistakes made in MS Office, I doubt very much Microsoft could do anything to blow it away in an instant. These things take time to design and develop, no matter how many or how good your ``A-players''. And Apple doesn't have to reverse engineer doodly-squat when they can work (and are already working) with DataViz who is licensed to work with MS document formats. So what I mentioned is indeed possible.
If Steve Jobs had a secret Intel port of Mac OS X going on for years, is it so hard to imagine that he might have a secret office suite project going on in case Microsoft dumps Apple? The only reason he wouldn't release it would be because Microsoft's support for Apple is good for sales and Apple's own office suite would be for a ``use only in case of emergency'' scenario. I mean, even if it were vastly superior to Microsoft Office, it would be a hard sell.
If a few more developers had experience in the "Next" way of doing things and committed themselves to the Mac platform I'd be a happy camper.
They wouldn't even have to commit themselves to the Mac platform to take advantage of the NeXTStep way of thinking, that is to say, they wouldn't have to go into the proprietary world of software, they could develop with GNUstep and port to the Mac. I wish GNUstep would become more popular. It just makes so much more sense than Gnome/Gtk or KDE/Qt.
While I would have to agree there certainly are people who want to do what you say, would you nonetheless expect that there would be enough of them to make the expense of developing and marketing a virtual machine for Mac OS X pay off? I also must say that your mention of OmniGraffle is a reflection of your excellent taste.
The virtualization of MS Windows on Mac OS X makes sense because there is a lot of software available for MSWin that isn't available for Mac OS X. The reverse is just simply not true. The fact that many people like Mac OS X much more doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason to spend the money when you can just get the software you need for MSWin itself, software that would integrate much better with the rest of the system. It seems to me the only reason for virtualizing Mac OS X would be so you can bring it up, look at it, and say ``wow, that's nice''. I could be wrong---it's certainly happened many times before---but I don't think most people would want to pay for that.
This article is some of the most idiotic tripe I've ever read. For example, he says Jobs's proposal for is merely propoganda because he claims, without backing it up, that Apple is the ``largest source of proprietary DRM software''. First off Apple made a contract with the record companies that they would use DRM protection in order to convince them to sell music online. It's a contract---the only way out is to either terminate their rights to sell the music online, or if all the parties on the contract agree to change, in this case, to DRM-free music. Secondly, whenever I try to watch something or listen to something online, I often can't because it's ``protected'' by Microsoft DRM and can only be viewed or heard through a MS Windows box. I'm sure there's a lot more streaming going on out there than downloading from iTunes. It seems to me, that would make Microsoft more likely to be the ``largest source of proprietary DRM software''.
Frankly, I would prefer to read an article about how Rolling Stone is the Microsoft of the pop music magazine world. To me, that would seem more apt.
I don't know where you studied your theology, but if you spend a little more time reading that to which you were referring you might find that Adam and Eve were led only to think of knowledge as power. After they indulged, even more so than power, they found knowledge was responsibility. It's funny you seem to have the view of religious matters as Marx
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you've used XCode. Since XCode evolved from the NeXT IDE and toolkit you should recognize a lot of similarities with Visual Studio since the chances are excellent that Visual Studio picked up an awful lot from NeXT development environment. There are things beyond the Linux/MSWin world, y'know.
There are apparently two different ways to hate Microsoft. One is to hate them as this big evil monopolistic corporation. Another is to hate them as a company whose products are poor. I pretty much hate them because I think their products are terrible. I get zapped for saying this, probably by very defensive moderators, but most of the others here are from the Linux world, I'm assuming, and actually love Microsoft products because it's what they grew up with and that's what they know. To me, that's loving Microsoft.
But I'm OK with anyone who honestly openly loves Microsoft. I'm not positively impressed with those who love Microsoft but say they hate MS because it makes them cool to hate this ``evil monopoly''. If you really think Microsoft makes a product that others are incapable of besting, then what difference does it make if they're a monopoly other than that they, as a monopoly who makes what you think is the best product, can actually force the overall quality of the software world higher?
(One last clarification: when I said I was OK with people who openly love Microsoft, I meant personally, I didn't mean I was OK with their taste. I think their taste is bad. This is where the MS software loving mods zap me. OK mod, get your jollies and zap away. If this is Miguel de Icaza's day to moderate I'm definitely toast.)
According to Wikipedia, a modified version of lcc was used for compiling Quake III. It seems to me, this compiler would be far more maintainable, but for some reason, the world doesn't seem ready for literate programming.
A do-while loop in C and C++ must run at least once so that's not necessarily an unusual thing to have in a programming language. In pascal, if you don't want a loop to always execute at least once, then don't make it a for loop, make it a while loop. Unlike in C, a for loop in pascal isn't just a special case of a while loop. I guess that's why they're different languages. Like Steve Martin complained about the people of France not speaking English, ``it's like they have a different word for everything''.
As for the strict type checking, I don't know what kind of C++ compiler you use, but when I use a modern C++ compiler like a recent gcc, it's even picky about the friggin' ``void*'' type---the ``void*'' type, for cryin' out loud. It's not the compiler's fault, that's just how C++ is defined nowadays with respect to types. And you're complaining about pascal's strict type checking while saying how well C++ has served you? That's a real head scratcher to me.
Because that question doesn't seem to exclude non-commercial, non-graphical applications, or specify particular operating systems, my response might be painfully boring (and just as painfully obvious) to some people, but I would have to say the original Berkeley vi and, of course, c-kermit. Sorry vim people, but with GNU Emacs available for extensibility, I honestly don't know why you would want to bloat something as lean, mean and beautiful as vi.
I never thought there was a problem with using hydrogen as fuel, and I don't believe I ever heard or read that there was a problem there. My understanding is that there are other problems, one being able to safely carry the hydrogen in your vehicle. Another problem is being able to safely distribute the fuel. And so on. This article doesn't exactly sound like a breakthrough to me. Even if it sounds like it might allow the driver to transition from gas to H2, once they figure out how to solve the real problems, that feature will probably be lost.
What does Sir E.J. have against people putting together their own music? Just because he thinks they should go out and buy somebody's CD sold by a big record company instead? I thought pop music was about entertaining the people (``pop'' meaning popular, of course), not about making somebody else wealthy or wealthier. If people are entertaining themselves with their own music, isn't that more creative not less creative? And if someone is entertained by an amateur's YouTube video how is that necessarily less legitimately enriching than being entertained by a commercial artist?
As for going out and playing with other people, that's great, but who here imagines Sir E.J. goes to a local bar to jam with the average joe as the average joe's equal on Blue Mondays? When he plays with other people they're usually under his direction which, with respect to musical communication, means he's essentially playing by himself. So then he says he doesn't have an iPod or mobile phone as if that means no one else should have or even want them. Well, I don't have a mansion and wouldn't want one even if I could afford it so I don't think he should have one.
As for protesting versus blogging, couldn't you put together a much more coherent argument for your point of view in a blog than you could on a protest sign? And who ever said a blogger is less likely to protest than anyone else?---Oh yeah, Elton John did. That means a lot.
As for the blogger writing to say Sir E.J. has a good point, how many negatives is enough? ``Regardless'' is good enough for me, but if you're going to use ``irregardless'' why not use ``not irregardless'' or better yet ``not hardly irregardless''? Anyway, not hardly never irregardless of whether Sir E.J.'s music is good, bad, or indifferent, after all the attention his music got in the past, I think he's looking to blame something for the relative lack of attention his music gets now.
Running Mac OS X software on Linux doesn't alter the Mac buyer's perception of the Mac experience because they've got a Mac OS X box, not a Linux box. And hopefully the average person running Linux will be sophisticated enough to understand that running Mac OS X software through emulation isn't the Mac experience either. I don't think Apple has any reason to care one way or the other.
.Net and C#; NeXT developed the Objective-C front end for gcc which Apple still supports; and GNUStep is still far less popular than MS Windows flavored projects like Gnome and KDE. The free software world worked on its own C# front end for gcc even without Microsoft helping them out. And then there's Mono, DotGNU, and so on.
I've got to give the most weight to your second explanation. MS Windows has a heck of a lot more software than the Mac available for it so emulation for MS Windows is far more important. Also, MS Windows is more oriented towards a system where the more software, the merrier, as opposed to the Mac which is more oriented towards an integrated environment to make working with cameras, iPods, whatever-else, easier. Emulation could better take advantage of the MS Windows model than it could the Mac.
As for any Mac OS X project becoming popular with the Linux world, I don't think that's going to happen even if Apple promotes it, much less shuts it down. The hypothesis is that the Linux developer's perception of the commercial software world is MS Windows and their goal is to move closer to that. The evidence is that NeXT actually released the standards for what is now used by Apple for Mac OS X way before Microsoft released their standards for
If anything, Apple has actually helped the free software world move closer to what they do with GUIs, libraries and languages, not forbidden it. Looking at the free software projects out there, it is apparent, if not obvious, that the free software world has overwhelmingly chosen the Microsoft flavor of GUIs and libraries.
Excellent points except the change mentioned in the comment to which you're replying is from StarOffice to Microsoft Office and they do want to change. You're making it sound like they're resistant to change when in fact you just don't like the change that they want. For as much as I dislike Microsoft Office, I dislike OpenOffice even more and can completely understand the average non-tech, non-OpenSource-fan point of view. Your apparent perception that there's no significant difference in quality between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice/StarOffice is somewhere between wishful thinking and delusion.
He used something like this as a premise for the movie ``Sabrina'' with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. At first I thought I was just going to have to suspend my disbelief because plastic from sugar seemed stupid. Now the only problem I had with the movie has been erased. The part where a gorgeous young woman goes for a dumpy looking nerdy old guy---now that I can buy.
Between lossy and non-lossy, wouldn't the same bit rate usually be worse for the non-lossy? Isn't the reason for lossy compression in the first place to able to use a lower bit rate to come close to what it takes takes non-lossy compression to do with a higher bit rate?
I think you should be able to read it here.
I see so much railing on Vista, but as someone who doesn't use MS Windows, I have no idea of what the problems are with Vista that's getting everyone so bent out of shape. Could someone please provide a link to a reliable list of problems with the new Vista? I've been reading what seems to be a lot of bitterness, but I just don't know what could be all that much worse about Vista than XP. I guess I'm also wondering if Microsoft might have actually made some improvements that maybe people feel uncomfortable with because it's different than what they're used to.
Mac OS X comes with a commercial grade IDE at no extra charge. You can buy an Intel compiler to plug into that IDE if you want your code to run faster, but in most cases that will unnecessary. Not only is Apple being friendly to third party developers on Mac OS X, but downright accommodating, again, at no extra charge. Quite frankly, in my experience, it's nicer than MS Windows as a development environment, and to get a comparable development for MS Windows for distributing your own binaries, you're going to have to pay some serious money.
When it came to everything you did to deal with different MS Word formats, I notice you didn't mention MacLinkPlus Deluxe so maybe you should have given that a try. Also, if the recipient of your document doesn't need to be editing that document, perhaps you should consider sending that person a PDF instead. A PDF is even more likely to display what you intended.
Also, there might be some versions hidden in your .doc file that you might not want your recipient to see anyway. Hey, it happens. And it might have already happened to your wife. Oops! Personally, I think people should avoid passing around .doc files as much as possible for reasons too numerous to mention and too obvious to bother.
as in ``programming wizard'' as opposed to ``to take a ...''?
I haven't really looked into the available options yet, but even coming in too unprepared to give you a point-by-point rebuttal, I see serious problems with what you're claiming.
Before there ever was an Active Directory, there was a YellowPages (later referred to as NIS) by Sun, and a netinfo by NeXT. Active Directory itself is a response to the implementations of software for maintaining users and groups on a network with LDAP-based systems. And because Active Directory refuses to play nice with other non-Microsoft platforms, it should be the last thing any reasonable person would ever consider using. If for some reason you would prefer commercial support for your network user directory, why wouldn't you use eDirectory from Novell since, like the free software implementations, eDirectory can work with Linux and Mac OS X clients as well as MS Windows clients? Active Directory has no benefit over other systems, and has a serious drawback with respect to networking with other platforms.
As for Linux/Unix thin clients, I remember years ago logging onto X terminals instead of onto workstations. The only reason the thin client went out is because PCs became so incredibly cheap. A Unix flavored thin client would be easy, but you would need a specific reason for doing it now that the expense of workstations is not really an issue anymore. And with Unix/X Windows ``thin clients'' you could log onto several different desktop sessions for a single user running at the same time. Even thinking of doing something like that with MS Windows is just crazy.
As for reaching Linux or Mac OS X desktops anywhere in the world, haven't you heard of VNC? I'm not putting in any links for it because there would just be too many. And there other things besides VNC but that's just a start. Apple also has its own proprietary software, Apple Remote Desktop, for doing the same thing. As for load balanced access, jeepers, where I work I can log onto a Linux cluster and it sends me to the most available node. Clusters are capable of load balancing, and you can cluster with both Linux and Mac OS X. Mac OS X makes it easy in simpler cases with Xgrid which comes with the server version of the OS. And just so you know, it isn't clients, thin or otherwise, that do load balancing, it's servers.
I don't have time to go over the rest of your letter, but it goes on and on, and on. Everything you've said can't be done on Linux/Unix or Mac OS X is already being done, and in every case better, cheaper, and first.
If Apple had been secretly developing a serious office suite (as opposed to iWork) for years, having learned from mistakes made in MS Office, I doubt very much Microsoft could do anything to blow it away in an instant. These things take time to design and develop, no matter how many or how good your ``A-players''. And Apple doesn't have to reverse engineer doodly-squat when they can work (and are already working) with DataViz who is licensed to work with MS document formats. So what I mentioned is indeed possible.
If Steve Jobs had a secret Intel port of Mac OS X going on for years, is it so hard to imagine that he might have a secret office suite project going on in case Microsoft dumps Apple? The only reason he wouldn't release it would be because Microsoft's support for Apple is good for sales and Apple's own office suite would be for a ``use only in case of emergency'' scenario. I mean, even if it were vastly superior to Microsoft Office, it would be a hard sell.
While I would have to agree there certainly are people who want to do what you say, would you nonetheless expect that there would be enough of them to make the expense of developing and marketing a virtual machine for Mac OS X pay off? I also must say that your mention of OmniGraffle is a reflection of your excellent taste.
The virtualization of MS Windows on Mac OS X makes sense because there is a lot of software available for MSWin that isn't available for Mac OS X. The reverse is just simply not true. The fact that many people like Mac OS X much more doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason to spend the money when you can just get the software you need for MSWin itself, software that would integrate much better with the rest of the system. It seems to me the only reason for virtualizing Mac OS X would be so you can bring it up, look at it, and say ``wow, that's nice''. I could be wrong---it's certainly happened many times before---but I don't think most people would want to pay for that.
This article is some of the most idiotic tripe I've ever read. For example, he says Jobs's proposal for is merely propoganda because he claims, without backing it up, that Apple is the ``largest source of proprietary DRM software''. First off Apple made a contract with the record companies that they would use DRM protection in order to convince them to sell music online. It's a contract---the only way out is to either terminate their rights to sell the music online, or if all the parties on the contract agree to change, in this case, to DRM-free music. Secondly, whenever I try to watch something or listen to something online, I often can't because it's ``protected'' by Microsoft DRM and can only be viewed or heard through a MS Windows box. I'm sure there's a lot more streaming going on out there than downloading from iTunes. It seems to me, that would make Microsoft more likely to be the ``largest source of proprietary DRM software''.
Frankly, I would prefer to read an article about how Rolling Stone is the Microsoft of the pop music magazine world. To me, that would seem more apt.
I don't know where you studied your theology, but if you spend a little more time reading that to which you were referring you might find that Adam and Eve were led only to think of knowledge as power. After they indulged, even more so than power, they found knowledge was responsibility. It's funny you seem to have the view of religious matters as Marx
Am I the only who's seen this and immediately thought of the slashdot moderators?