And what's so special about Linux that Sun should climb on board it?
It's one of very few platforms with strong growth in deployment.
It's still missing some features that Sun is one of the few companies that knows how to provide.
The latter point is less about what's special about Linux (technically, Solaris and FreeBSD are fine OS, too, they just aren't growing in deployments as much), but about what's special about Sun.
As cheap Linux servers become more prevalent, customers will be more willing to upgrade into higher end x86 compatiable servers (4-way, 8-way, etc, racks with single system image) than to make a jump over to Solaris/SPARC (even though the jump is not the same yawnign chasm separating *NIX and Windows).
It's really classic Innovator's Dilemma (the jump to new business growth requires a willingness to sacrifice the old established business line). There's nothing technically wrong or bad about Solaris/SPARC; it's just that you can see it is very unlikely to be a growth market, no matter how much current revenue it brings in.
I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens
They could be, but not necessarily.
Just as the rest of the world gets caught up in emotional irrational evaluation of how government ought to be run, so can geeks.
Not a few geeks are emotionally involved with science and technology. That attachment can be an asset when it helps to drive scientific progress.
But it can be a liability when it comes time to evaluate whether it is best to spend money on fish or bicycles, which are the kinds of decisions and value judgements confronting elected representatives.
Probably the most significant contribution an elected geek could make is to push in every possible way for the population to become more educated, more rational, willing more to use powers of analysis than to fall back on emotion and feeling. Unfortunately, the latter traits are becoming too well developed because they are useful pry bars in advertising as well as in their long-standing role in swaying political opinion.
Early childhood education programs will really bring the most bang for the buck if you look in the long term.
This will put a severe crimp in the growth of outsourcing of services such as data entry.
Apart from subcontractors in the U.S. quaking in their boots because of potential liability they'll face under U.S. law, there will also be many in Pakistan unhappy with the consequences of fewer companies wanting to risk something like this happening again in the future.
The best thing about a corporation is that it protects individuals, encouraging risk-taking competitive capitalism. The worst thing about a corporation is that ir protects individuals, encouraging irresponsible and borderline-criminal behaviour.
Well said.
Any decade now, when I become wealthy enought to invest money in other companies, you can be sure I'll give points to management that asks for themselves reasonable salaries and company stock options that can't be exercised for plenty of years.
People running companies shouldn't be short-timers who can seriosly sabotage the long-term viability of the company through decisions that make the bottom line look good in the short term (you know, cut research, quality-control, customer-service).
I hope this isn't the only iron in the fire fort Sun.
As others have mentioned, it will ruin their good relationship with TI.
Also, it's doubtful that special purpose RISC chips can provide enough in the price/performance arena to keep from having their market share continue to decline, as it has for the last 10 years or so.
Low end Linux servers is a dangerously competitive business for Sun to be in, but it's a growing business and one where they have much to offer.
Fortunately, if Sun "doesn't have a Linux strategy", Dell, the 800 lb gorilla, is still half-napping, too. Dell's support of Linux is weaker than that of rivals IBM and HP, plus their potentially missing some nice opportunities by actively ignoring non-Intel x86.
Sun should climb on board the AMD Opteron with Linux. They are a company with the experience and credentials to create a quality piece of hardware and have the UNIX background to cover the software side, too.
Smaller companies, such as the one I work for, would have a hard time coming up with that capital, and may be better off challenging SCOs claims in court in order to save themselves from a major financial hit.
<IANAL>
The most popular and cost-effective strategy for small companies to deal with SCO's preposterous claims is:
to
do
absolutely
nothing.
They can save themselves legal expense until they are directly and individually challenged by SCO.
Only if they should receive an actual summons (not just a dunning letter sent to EveryCorp), then they can apply their legal staff to forestall based on the outcome of ongoing cases that will establish the validity (or not) of SCO's claims.
</IANAL>
Basically, Shallowpockets will agree to pay you tolls for use of the Brooklyn Bridge (rights to which you say you have) just as soon as your ongoing case for toll collection rights is proved against DeepPockets Corporation.
P.S. Anyone foolish enough to invest in buying SCOX ought to examine the risks with some quantitative analysis. Consider the fraction of companies purchasing SCO licenses and the total number of companies: IIRC it's about 1 of 500, or 0.002.
Also, consider the open market price of indemnification vs the cost of a full license plus penalties and interest.
Could you get, say, 50% of Fortune 500 companies using Linux willing to pay, say, US$3.00 per seat for SCO indemnification, as "insurance"?
With estimates of those numbers, you have the a market valuation of risk that SCO's claims are valid.
Right now, it's hard for me to see many companies willing to pay anything for such indemnification. You can see SCO's tactics, too, in raising the ante on the potential costs of "noncompliance" to get that ratio back off the zero peg.
Smart money is on selling SCOX. And the insiders at SCO seem to concur, judging by their actions.
This guide is mostly a compendium to help users of Microsoft products in migrating to free and open source software equivalents that they might not be familiar with.
In other words, if you've already decided to migrate and don't know much about where you're going, then this will help you. That seems to be insufficient. You need to know more about your destination (and where you're starting from) before you activate a migration.
Such a document is educational, but is not the only set of information that someone needs.
What's needed is an objective survey of organizations that have made a migration, including details of the work mix, what glitches they had to overcome, hidden training costs of moving, extra savings they hadn't anticipated from the move, etc.
Motivation for considering a migration is remarkable because it isn't trumpeted loudly by a particular company that stands to profit if you migrate. Competing organizations that have made a successful migration have little incentive to alert you to any advantages they might have gained from making such a migration. In fact, they can profit by keeping you in the dark if they have obtained a migration advantage.
Just how objective are the big IT consulting firms stand in such evaluations? A recent Gartner recommendation seems to resemble a long list of Why Not To migrate. And certainly there are genuine pitfalls. But IT consulting firms are not foolproof in their evaluations and recommendations nor are they immune to influence.
What's needed are more publicly available documents of case studies of migrations that have happened:
what we did right,
what we did wrong,
what kind of business we do,
how much did we save,
how long did it take.
would I do it again?
I'm thinking of case studies like Ernie Ball, but including other businesses, too.
This was some years ago, but I remember being jealous of foreign students that had been able to obtain either
less expensive soft cover versions of texts, where only the hardcover was available in the U.S. (and, to add insult, was a poor-quality binding, I've got duct-tape over the book spine)
classic expensive books reprinted without permission by some outfit in Taiwan
For books that were $100 this was a big deal.
Some students photocopied whole books, but the big pile of smudgable papers, hours spent getting flashed by strobes, wasn't worth the saved expense and convenience of a genuine book, IMHO.
BTW, I thoroughly recommend that people check out Dover books for inexpensive paperback reprintings of really classic works.
IIRC, different kinds of communication provide differents levels of effect.
An email from 733th4Xor@hotmail.com to one of the FCC commissioners will receive a weight close to zero.
A phone call is better.
A postcard is better still.
A well-written letter on good stationary and signed is even better.
If you want really impressive effects, then you need to go the next $PARTY fundraising dinner, provide a large contribution. Then, using the telephone, you can call the boss of the FCC head and tell him you think that a particular point of view is very important to you.
Instead of a binary choice of black list or white list, where trust is all or nothing, a degree of trust should be established with keys signings from servers that endorse the level of trustworthiness of other servers. Perhaps the host keys used by SSH would be a good start on such a system.
Since trust would be collectively measured and each individual server manager would be in a position to selectively weight trust from various other servers, spammers couldn't easily bomb the system by providing unreliable endorsing servers.
Users will still get a trickle of spam, but every piece they get and use to feedback into the system (this IP address sent me trash) will quickly help sort out all the spam spewers.
It would be a shame, however, if
there were no way for some trusted server to be used for anonymous email, which has its uses apart from spam. Maybe anonymous re-mailers could work again, as long as inbound messages come from a trusted server.
About how much hassle you'll have to go through getting the open source license server manager daemons properly configured after calling in your product activation!
How the hell is anything that is US/Russia aerospace research oriented still worth classifying 50 years after the fact?
Many things are.
One example would be something that shows profound stupidity and waste, like an expensive experimental airplane flapping large metallic wings and flying with all the aplomb of a pig into the ground.
Another example would be something that is embarrassing for other reasons, such as an X-49 Army phallus-shaped dirigible painted with the initials and portrait of a president.
...it's something the customers actually want, because you're advertising something they're interested in.
Yes, kind of.
The argument that it's something the customer wants or is likely to be interested in has been used to justify rather intrusive incursions into their realm of perception.
Consequently, we see advertising aimed at lower levels of our conscious wants and needs. We'll feel anxious that we won't be a desirable mate until the precise moment that we're engaged in the act of purchasing a product. If an advertiser could reliably create orgasms in people when a particular product was purchased, they would do it because it would be profitable to do so.
Are there any ethical boundaries associated with creating wants and desires in people?
Free commerce, assisted by science, will seek to take advantage of every emotion and human instinct if it can be made to play into a purchasing decision.
Recently, a woman that lived for decades in the old USSR was describing how sad it was to live in a society in which the public space was filled with state propaganda. I don't know if she had any idea just how congested are the public spaces in commerce-worshiping societies.
Every special or beautiful thing, art, literature, compassion, fear of death, feelings of nurturing, worship, has been used shamelessly in order to sell something.
Not much is left anymore in the public spaces of modern culture that hasn't been already sold.
This time bomb effect for email decryption will be interesting.
Some companies have Policies about records retention so that old emails are expected to disappear. This is helpful if they feel there are more potential legal liabilities associated with keeping old emails (which makes you wonder exactly what kind of business they're in). Classic examples of emails that some people wish disappeared include Monica Lewinsky's and those introduced by the U. S. Department of Justice at the MS anti-trust trial.
But wholescale destruction is harmful in terms of the lost accumulated knowledge and the inherent business value of data mining at some future time.
Emails don't all have compromising awkward content; some have valuable technical information in them. It's bad enough that old important information is lost amidst a sea of multiple obsolete word processor formats, but if it's in an email that cannot be searched by someone in the business in the future then there is a cost associated with that loss.
Once a corporate culture adopts a model of less trust, you can be sure that people will be less willing to be adventurous and creative and long-term profitability will decline.
Genuine free trade, even in the Western hemisphere, has a few hurdles to overcome.
Forget the whole "Intellectual Property" issues for a moment.
Think about having free trade address the supply and demand of markets for pot, coke and opium.
Then there are subsidies that individual governments are fond of giving to specific constituents (eg, steel in the US, farm products just about everywhere).
Then there are the regulations that each country imposes on commerce such as minimum wage, health taxes, environmental protection, etc.
I'm not saying regulations are bad or good - only that trade between nations with different regulations is likely to be distorted from what would be called "free". Some like minimum regulation, some like more regulation. But uniform regulation (and subsidy policy) across trading partners would be best.
I admire ESR's ability to write these rules that are concise and profound.
In my real life UNIX world, despite my heavy use of the command line, there's a lot of GUI stuff managed by systems with less philosphical purity.
Put X, KDE and Gnome up agains the list of Rules and it's hard to say they their successes originate in their observance of the rules. Perhaps their failings may be correlated to their deviance from the rules.
Given a choice between processors that are twice as fast or twice as many machines, everything else being equal, the best choice was "processors that are twice as fast". Parallel efficiency always drops off and kills you for sufficiently large numbers of processors.
Ten years ago, if you wanted the highest performance for your parallel machine, it made sense to spend some extra so that each processor was the absolute fastest it could be.
The difference in performance now is not as great as it was. And the difference in price favors the x86 platform.
The special purpose high performance RISC processors would still have a fighting chance in the scientific computing arena if it weren't that
all modern processors are becoming memory starved
networking between processors is getting fast and cheap
The big caches on the Alpha chips make them attractive, and it's impressive that a chip line this old is still very competitive in performance, but they can't hold on forever.
Another of the unusual business decisions that Adobe made was to
acquire Framemaker
not release it for Linux, despite Linux desktops edging out all the other Unix desktop platforms that Frame runs on.
They had a beta program which they discontinued.
With their other products and with MS Word out there for Windows and Mac, giving up the Linux market when they had a reasonable product for it seems particularly screwy to me. I think the mantra of "focus, consolidate" has acquired a life of its own in Adobe's management ranks.
Slashdot Mirror
And what's so special about Linux that Sun should climb on board it?
The latter point is less about what's special about Linux (technically, Solaris and FreeBSD are fine OS, too, they just aren't growing in deployments as much), but about what's special about Sun.
As cheap Linux servers become more prevalent, customers will be more willing to upgrade into higher end x86 compatiable servers (4-way, 8-way, etc, racks with single system image) than to make a jump over to Solaris/SPARC (even though the jump is not the same yawnign chasm separating *NIX and Windows).
It's really classic Innovator's Dilemma (the jump to new business growth requires a willingness to sacrifice the old established business line). There's nothing technically wrong or bad about Solaris/SPARC; it's just that you can see it is very unlikely to be a growth market, no matter how much current revenue it brings in.
I think geeks would be the best representatives of other citizens
They could be, but not necessarily.
Just as the rest of the world gets caught up in emotional irrational evaluation of how government ought to be run, so can geeks.
Not a few geeks are emotionally involved with science and technology. That attachment can be an asset when it helps to drive scientific progress.
But it can be a liability when it comes time to evaluate whether it is best to spend money on fish or bicycles, which are the kinds of decisions and value judgements confronting elected representatives.
Probably the most significant contribution an elected geek could make is to push in every possible way for the population to become more educated, more rational, willing more to use powers of analysis than to fall back on emotion and feeling. Unfortunately, the latter traits are becoming too well developed because they are useful pry bars in advertising as well as in their long-standing role in swaying political opinion.
Early childhood education programs will really bring the most bang for the buck if you look in the long term.
This will put a severe crimp in the growth of outsourcing of services such as data entry.
Apart from subcontractors in the U.S. quaking in their boots because of potential liability they'll face under U.S. law, there will also be many in Pakistan unhappy with the consequences of fewer companies wanting to risk something like this happening again in the future.
put enough solarpanels in the Sahara
That's one option.
Another might be to put the solar panels in orbit and to beam down the power to whereever you needed it.
Yes, it's fraught with danger, radiating concentrated power out of the skies.
The upside is that you could justify funding the whole thing for military purposes, but it could end up being practical, too.
It would make sense for stationary receiving stations; reliably hitting a vehicle undergoing unusual accelerations from LEO would be challenge.
The best thing about a corporation is that it protects individuals, encouraging risk-taking competitive capitalism. The worst thing about a corporation is that ir protects individuals, encouraging irresponsible and borderline-criminal behaviour.
Well said.
Any decade now, when I become wealthy enought to invest money in other companies, you can be sure I'll give points to management that asks for themselves reasonable salaries and company stock options that can't be exercised for plenty of years.
People running companies shouldn't be short-timers who can seriosly sabotage the long-term viability of the company through decisions that make the bottom line look good in the short term (you know, cut research, quality-control, customer-service).
I hope this isn't the only iron in the fire fort Sun.
As others have mentioned, it will ruin their good relationship with TI.
Also, it's doubtful that special purpose RISC chips can provide enough in the price/performance arena to keep from having their market share continue to decline, as it has for the last 10 years or so.
Low end Linux servers is a dangerously competitive business for Sun to be in, but it's a growing business and one where they have much to offer.
Fortunately, if Sun "doesn't have a Linux strategy", Dell, the 800 lb gorilla, is still half-napping, too. Dell's support of Linux is weaker than that of rivals IBM and HP, plus their potentially missing some nice opportunities by actively ignoring non-Intel x86.
Sun should climb on board the AMD Opteron with Linux. They are a company with the experience and credentials to create a quality piece of hardware and have the UNIX background to cover the software side, too.
unusually ironic twist, Microsoft has started talking smack about their own products,
When you get into the big leagues, a league of your own, a world of your own, then the only critic you can accept is yourself.
Because, after all, everyone else is incompetent, a sniping dog of a rival, etc., or they wouldn't be as successful as us!
A consistent attitude from a company that brings us Innovation through embrace, extend and extinguish.
Smaller companies, such as the one I work for, would have a hard time coming up with that capital, and may be better off challenging SCOs claims in court in order to save themselves from a major financial hit.
<IANAL>
The most popular and cost-effective strategy for small companies to deal with SCO's preposterous claims is:
They can save themselves legal expense until they are directly and individually challenged by SCO.
Only if they should receive an actual summons (not just a dunning letter sent to EveryCorp), then they can apply their legal staff to forestall based on the outcome of ongoing cases that will establish the validity (or not) of SCO's claims.
</IANAL>Basically, Shallowpockets will agree to pay you tolls for use of the Brooklyn Bridge (rights to which you say you have) just as soon as your ongoing case for toll collection rights is proved against DeepPockets Corporation.
P.S. Anyone foolish enough to invest in buying SCOX ought to examine the risks with some quantitative analysis. Consider the fraction of companies purchasing SCO licenses and the total number of companies: IIRC it's about 1 of 500, or 0.002.
Also, consider the open market price of indemnification vs the cost of a full license plus penalties and interest.
Could you get, say, 50% of Fortune 500 companies using Linux willing to pay, say, US$3.00 per seat for SCO indemnification, as "insurance"?
With estimates of those numbers, you have the a market valuation of risk that SCO's claims are valid. Right now, it's hard for me to see many companies willing to pay anything for such indemnification. You can see SCO's tactics, too, in raising the ante on the potential costs of "noncompliance" to get that ratio back off the zero peg.
Smart money is on selling SCOX. And the insiders at SCO seem to concur, judging by their actions.
No doubt in the UK or USA it would have taken years for everyone to change over to the new side.
Decades, more like, if the conversion to the metric system is any guide.
This guide is mostly a compendium to help users of Microsoft products in migrating to free and open source software equivalents that they might not be familiar with.
In other words, if you've already decided to migrate and don't know much about where you're going, then this will help you. That seems to be insufficient. You need to know more about your destination (and where you're starting from) before you activate a migration.
Such a document is educational, but is not the only set of information that someone needs.
What's needed is an objective survey of organizations that have made a migration, including details of the work mix, what glitches they had to overcome, hidden training costs of moving, extra savings they hadn't anticipated from the move, etc.
Motivation for considering a migration is remarkable because it isn't trumpeted loudly by a particular company that stands to profit if you migrate. Competing organizations that have made a successful migration have little incentive to alert you to any advantages they might have gained from making such a migration. In fact, they can profit by keeping you in the dark if they have obtained a migration advantage.
Just how objective are the big IT consulting firms stand in such evaluations? A recent Gartner recommendation seems to resemble a long list of Why Not To migrate. And certainly there are genuine pitfalls. But IT consulting firms are not foolproof in their evaluations and recommendations nor are they immune to influence.
What's needed are more publicly available documents of case studies of migrations that have happened:I'm thinking of case studies like Ernie Ball, but including other businesses, too.
This was some years ago, but I remember being jealous of foreign students that had been able to obtain either
For books that were $100 this was a big deal.
Some students photocopied whole books, but the big pile of smudgable papers, hours spent getting flashed by strobes, wasn't worth the saved expense and convenience of a genuine book, IMHO.
BTW, I thoroughly recommend that people check out Dover books for inexpensive paperback reprintings of really classic works.
IIRC, different kinds of communication provide differents levels of effect.
An email from 733th4Xor@hotmail.com to one of the FCC commissioners will receive a weight close to zero.
A phone call is better.
A postcard is better still.
A well-written letter on good stationary and signed is even better.
If you want really impressive effects, then you need to go the next $PARTY fundraising dinner, provide a large contribution. Then, using the telephone, you can call the boss of the FCC head and tell him you think that a particular point of view is very important to you.
I like that idea.
Instead of a binary choice of black list or white list, where trust is all or nothing, a degree of trust should be established with keys signings from servers that endorse the level of trustworthiness of other servers. Perhaps the host keys used by SSH would be a good start on such a system.
Since trust would be collectively measured and each individual server manager would be in a position to selectively weight trust from various other servers, spammers couldn't easily bomb the system by providing unreliable endorsing servers.
Users will still get a trickle of spam, but every piece they get and use to feedback into the system (this IP address sent me trash) will quickly help sort out all the spam spewers.
It would be a shame, however, if there were no way for some trusted server to be used for anonymous email, which has its uses apart from spam. Maybe anonymous re-mailers could work again, as long as inbound messages come from a trusted server.
About how much hassle you'll have to go through getting the open source license server manager daemons properly configured after calling in your product activation!
[Sorry, couldn't resist.]
How the hell is anything that is US/Russia aerospace research oriented still worth classifying 50 years after the fact?
Many things are.
One example would be something that shows profound stupidity and waste, like an expensive experimental airplane flapping large metallic wings and flying with all the aplomb of a pig into the ground.
Another example would be something that is embarrassing for other reasons, such as an X-49 Army phallus-shaped dirigible painted with the initials and portrait of a president.
Yes, kind of.
The argument that it's something the customer wants or is likely to be interested in has been used to justify rather intrusive incursions into their realm of perception.
Consequently, we see advertising aimed at lower levels of our conscious wants and needs. We'll feel anxious that we won't be a desirable mate until the precise moment that we're engaged in the act of purchasing a product. If an advertiser could reliably create orgasms in people when a particular product was purchased, they would do it because it would be profitable to do so.
Are there any ethical boundaries associated with creating wants and desires in people?
Free commerce, assisted by science, will seek to take advantage of every emotion and human instinct if it can be made to play into a purchasing decision.
Recently, a woman that lived for decades in the old USSR was describing how sad it was to live in a society in which the public space was filled with state propaganda. I don't know if she had any idea just how congested are the public spaces in commerce-worshiping societies.
Every special or beautiful thing, art, literature, compassion, fear of death, feelings of nurturing, worship, has been used shamelessly in order to sell something.
Not much is left anymore in the public spaces of modern culture that hasn't been already sold.
stop the leakage of internal memo
This time bomb effect for email decryption will be interesting.
Some companies have Policies about records retention so that old emails are expected to disappear. This is helpful if they feel there are more potential legal liabilities associated with keeping old emails (which makes you wonder exactly what kind of business they're in). Classic examples of emails that some people wish disappeared include Monica Lewinsky's and those introduced by the U. S. Department of Justice at the MS anti-trust trial.
But wholescale destruction is harmful in terms of the lost accumulated knowledge and the inherent business value of data mining at some future time.
Emails don't all have compromising awkward content; some have valuable technical information in them. It's bad enough that old important information is lost amidst a sea of multiple obsolete word processor formats, but if it's in an email that cannot be searched by someone in the business in the future then there is a cost associated with that loss.
Once a corporate culture adopts a model of less trust, you can be sure that people will be less willing to be adventurous and creative and long-term profitability will decline.
Between
- how much disruption and lost time will be caused by a potential exploit of the vulnerability and
- how much disruption and lost time will be caused by patches that break your mix of applications.
The only thing you can do is to start testing patches in a micro-environment as soon as they're released.That, and check your firewall rules to insure potential exploits can't enter via the easy routes.
Why?
Because it introduces people to the molasses and chains that are DRM.
From this experience, more people will be in a position to recognize TCPA for what it really is.
Genuine free trade, even in the Western hemisphere, has a few hurdles to overcome.
Forget the whole "Intellectual Property" issues for a moment.
Think about having free trade address the supply and demand of markets for pot, coke and opium.
Then there are subsidies that individual governments are fond of giving to specific constituents (eg, steel in the US, farm products just about everywhere).
Then there are the regulations that each country imposes on commerce such as minimum wage, health taxes, environmental protection, etc.
I'm not saying regulations are bad or good - only that trade between nations with different regulations is likely to be distorted from what would be called "free". Some like minimum regulation, some like more regulation. But uniform regulation (and subsidy policy) across trading partners would be best.
Other boats cruising with a lot of ballast:
I admire ESR's ability to write these rules that are concise and profound.
In my real life UNIX world, despite my heavy use of the command line, there's a lot of GUI stuff managed by systems with less philosphical purity.
Put X, KDE and Gnome up agains the list of Rules and it's hard to say they their successes originate in their observance of the rules. Perhaps their failings may be correlated to their deviance from the rules.
an old trick to appearing scalable:
Trick #2: Pick an your application so it is embarrassingly parallel.
scientific computing
This is an area where there's been change.
Given a choice between processors that are twice as fast or twice as many machines, everything else being equal, the best choice was "processors that are twice as fast". Parallel efficiency always drops off and kills you for sufficiently large numbers of processors.
Ten years ago, if you wanted the highest performance for your parallel machine, it made sense to spend some extra so that each processor was the absolute fastest it could be.
The difference in performance now is not as great as it was. And the difference in price favors the x86 platform.
The special purpose high performance RISC processors would still have a fighting chance in the scientific computing arena if it weren't that
- all modern processors are becoming memory starved
- networking between processors is getting fast and cheap
The big caches on the Alpha chips make them attractive, and it's impressive that a chip line this old is still very competitive in performance, but they can't hold on forever.Another of the unusual business decisions that Adobe made was to
- acquire Framemaker
- not release it for Linux, despite Linux desktops edging out all the other Unix desktop platforms that Frame runs on.
They had a beta program which they discontinued.With their other products and with MS Word out there for Windows and Mac, giving up the Linux market when they had a reasonable product for it seems particularly screwy to me. I think the mantra of "focus, consolidate" has acquired a life of its own in Adobe's management ranks.