Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Define "fit for business" (Score 1) 117

ISVs made Windows versions of their apps ages ago when their customers pressured them to because they wanted to move to Windows from whatever they were using before (usually UNIX); this is no different.

Of course they did because at that time they expended huge amounts of effort supporting the various different platforms but when the trend of everybody having their own flavour of UNIX on their own hardware died out in favour of a more standardized x86 PC platform that ended up running Windows for better or worse the ISVs saw the value in consolidating on the one dominant platform. Sure they could have kept spending resources supporting SunOS, Xenix, IRIX, HP-UX, Minix, et al but what would be the value in that?

So the question really is: what advantage does a different OS give them that would be worth the expensive and effort of getting ISVs to make new versions, and of getting your IT department to switch? Well, we can go back in time and ask the very same question of companies in the 1990s, when they all switched to Windows.

Well actually we can't go back in time, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you think that answer was?

Am I the only one here who remembers a time before Windows?

We had many different very expensive workstations that had different operating systems - SGI systems running IRIX and Sun systems running Solaris for example - then eventually it made sense to just buy Windows-based workstations because they were much much cheaper and more powerful thanks to economies of scale.

Comment Re:Define "fit for business" (Score 1) 117

If companies were actually serious about putting this kind of effort into a different OS, many more would have switched by now.

Why would they? If their applications run just fine on Windows or macOS then why would have switched? What extraoardinary advantage does a different OS give them that would be worth the enormous effort and huge expenses involved in recruiting and managing talent to build capable and feature-comparable versions of industry leading content-creation applications? Like say you run architectural firm and your draftsmen, engineers, architects, whatever come in, load up Revit on their Windows machines and do their work what would be the value for them in investing the untold sums of money and effort in building a Revit competitor just to run a different operating system?

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 403

not to mention its near constant attempts to sell me shit because I didn't invest in the enterprise edition

How is it making these attempts to sell you stuff? The only places i've seen advertising are a one-line of text in the start menu (which I just turned off in the start menu options) and the default tiles in the start menu (which I removed because I don't see any value in the live tiles) and they certainly aren't "constant".

Comment Re:How easy is it to fix something yourself? (Score 2) 134

Open source is fine and dandy, but the real killer feature is being able to easily fix a bug in the OS yourself, deploy and test to yourself, and share with others.

That's the killer feature of "Free Software" (or at least that's the idea), this is Open Source. Though of course it's a bit of a moving target for Free Software what with things like Tivoization (addressed with GPLv3) and "cloud computing" (Affero GPL) so what is and isn't "Free Software" can be a bit confusing in itself.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 126

There is a hugely diminishing return. I guarantee if you double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance.

Well it depends on what your eyesight is like, how big your TV is and how far you sit from it. The same as with 720p vs 1080p or retina-level screens on smartphones, tablets or PCs. Obviously if those variables align such that you can't tell the difference then it has no value to you so you don't invest in it, otherwise it does. But like I said, if you can't tell the difference then fine, it doesn't matter to you so why are you so worried about it?

If they focused on things that actually matter, like HDR or color space, it would be different.

They are doing HDR. Netflix aren't beholden to only doing the things where you can tell the difference.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 126

Yeah yeah, we heard the same thing going DVD to Bluray and going from standard smartphone/tablet/laptop screens to retina-level displays and now we're seeing it yet again with 1080p to 4k. Yes not everybody can tell the difference, if you can't then obviously this isn't relevant to you, for those that can it is relevant to them.

Comment Re:If only... (Score 2) 126

If only things could be decrypted without "hardware decryption features."

They can, there's plenty of different processors that support 10-bit HVEC decoding, in fact there's even many Android set-top boxes with ARM processors that can do it just fine. In this case their decoder implementation is taking advantage of Kaby Lake features because they are more efficient at doing it.

Comment Re:Why is this an OS? (Score 1) 191

Maybe it's difficult to charge for the bits and pieces they've just added to Ubuntu.

But I agree, do we really need yet-another-linux-based OS? Is there really any value to the user by using any of the dozens of different distros specifically?

Are you really going to keep up with security patches on the same level as the Ubuntu or Debian security teams?

This is actually just Ubuntu with some tweaks and changes so most updates will come for free by virtue of the codebase being almost entirely Ubuntu anyway.

Comment Re:Emulating Windows 10? (Score 1) 191

lol, one of the major reasons I want to use Linux is because it ISN'T Windows 10. The UI is far worse than Windows 7, for desktop PCs.

What exactly is it you do with your computer that the difference in UI has that much of an effect? The start menu is very similar to 7 and frankly if you just hit the start button and type the program you want, or use the taskbar or desktop to launch programs then it's no different at all. And once you're actually using your programs is it any different at all?

Comment Re:The mothership is here! (Score 1) 202

Nah, this is just the 'Embrace' phase of EEE that Microsoft is so well known for.

The 'Embrace' phase is pretty much the only one they are known for, people said it about Java, they said it about HTML standards, they said it about Linux kernel contributions, they said it about Open Source and now of course they're saying it about the Linux foundation so by all accounts "EEE" means "will become hugely successful".

Comment Re:EEE (Score 1) 93

This is the Embrace phase...

Phase of what? The only thing "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" has ever been tied to is Java and HTML web standards, so if that is anything to go buy then attributing EEE to something is the precursor to that thing becoming hugely popular and widely used and adopted.

People here said the same thing about Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel and hey what do you know, those people were wrong again. Though it shouldn't be surprising given so many in the community broadly dismissed products like the iPad and iPhone, prophesized about the popularity of open source consoles like Ouya, constantly predict the death of Microsoft and the Year of the Linux desktop. Frankly if you want to know what the trend in technology is just look at the prevailing opinion on slashdot and know that it's the opposite of that.

Comment Re:Comparison to Current GPUs? (Score 0) 170

Because, there are no Pascal GPU's with a TDP of 35W. If you put a 85W GTX 1060 into a Macbook Pro it'd probably burst into flames. Also, mobile Polaris chips are significantly thinner.

Right but that just highlights Apple's shift in their target market. They used to offer highend, high performance systems targeted at pro users with a flexible, professional operating system. The relative performance of their most high end "professional" laptops has dropped significantly in favor of being fashionably thin and while the introduction of Gatekeeper with it's defaults where you had to manually select that you wanted programs other than those from the app store was annoying, Sierra's removal of that option completely shows that this was the slippery slope so many people were saying.

Now you can't do a blanket authorization of non-approved apps, you can't buy a Macbook with a competitive GPU and if you want support for prevalent interfaces like USB-A, Thunderbolt 2, HDMI, etc... you need an array of dongles. They used to be about seamless interoperability, now it's just clumsy.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Working...