Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 390938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: 100% true
by twenex on Sun 25th Oct 2009 13:28 UTC in reply to "100% true"
Member since:

Exactly right. And I think it also applies to other, proprietary dinosaurs (mentioning no names, of course). Products should compete on their own merits, they shouldn't be forced on anyone. And I think that these days, 99% of the hardware you are going to use would work, on, say, Linux (even on my multifunctional, duplex, printer/scanner/fax/copier from HP, EVERYTHING works in Linux). Guess where the problems are? The graphics card in my desktop, which uses a proprietary driver for 3D and 2D acceleration.

Personally, if I weren't bothered about FOSS software (and many people aren't), I would gladly buy MacOS X if I could buy it cheaply and install it easily and legally on {insert any PC make here}. I would have bought a Mac already, if it weren't more expensive than an equivalent PC (and here in the UK, stuff that retails for $500 in the US is liable to retail for £500, i.e. almost double the cost to the American consumer). Now that the only chip that differentiates a Mac from a PC is the EFI (which isn't even proprietary to Apple, but a standard on Itanium), there really isn't much of an excuse for making Apple products expensive OR for keeping the OS tied to their hardware. I bet it would knock the socks off Windows 7 (apart from the strange drag-a-disk-icon-to-the-Trashcan feature, which I never liked but which might well now be gone).

Reply Parent Score: 2