Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Slogans That Work
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Nintendo now outsells Microsoft and Sony, and last year its market
> | capitalization surpassed Sony's.
> `----
>
> http://www.forbes.com/global/2008/0107/040.html?partner=yahoomag
No mention of the PS3 "using Linux" eh?
>
> Highs and Lows for Geeks in 2007
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The success of the Nintendo Wii proved that gamers are more interested in fun
> | than they are in snazzy graphics. Sure, the fact that the game system cost
> | half that of the Sony PlayStation 3 or the Xbox 360 didn't hurt, but the real
> | coup was how enjoyable the games are to play.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/60984.html
>
> Vista is just too heavy, expensive, and complicated. For the same reason that
> Nintendo does well, Linux is gradually taking over the desk/laptop.
Bullshit. KDE 4, which you were just wetting your knickers over, will a
put a stop to that "lightweight" approach.
>
>
> Related:
>
> Is Simple Software Always Better?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | On the opposite end of the spectrum, some software is built to be
> | so simple and elegant that you wonder if the developers only created
> | it so that it could be entered into a beauty pageant. All beauty and
> | no brains isn't a good combination either, but even with that said,
> | this is the development style that some OS X developers have fallen
> | into. Their applications may animate a certain action beautifully,
> | which is cool, but does the software actually do what it needs to
> | do? Are you sacrificing functionality for looks? Does the program
> | really add anything new, or is it the same old thing with an
> | extreme makeover? The truth of the matter is that looks will only
> | get you so far. You may be able to initially draw some eyeballs
> | your way, but once the novelty wears off, what do you have to show
> | for yourself? If you leave your users wanting more, then they may
> | even switch over to the "old-fashioned" applications that may not
> | look very pretty, and they may have a lot going on, but at least
> | they can get the job done.
> `----
>
> http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2394&Itemid=449
>
>
> Goodbye, cruel Word
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | So that’s how it is now. I write within the pure, glowing universes of
> | Scrivener and WriteRoom. I send articles to the Guardian as plain-text rather
> | than .doc. I am confident that I will be able to open those articles and the
> | chapters of my book again, if I want to, in 30 years’ time. And now a
> | 1000-word review weighs 4K instead of 30K. I weep at all the innocent
> | electrons I wastefully killed over the years, sending those massive,
> | lumbering Word documents through the internet. I apologise for my particle
> | profligacy. I have learned my lesson. Goodbye, cruel Word.
> `----
>
> http://stevenpoole.net/blog/goodbye-cruel-word/
And what about OO documents?
Christ you're a Luddite.
Mind you, I use Muse mode in emacs for all my publications - text mode
with only mild markup and ability to publish to all the important back
ends.
http://mwolson.org/projects/MuseMode.html
If anyone out there has ANY interest in keeping things simple (I do),
then have a read. it is quite astonishing what great documents and web
sites people come up with using emacs as an authoring tool in
conjunction with something like planner or org-mode.
You want to see real advocacy? see a site like this:
http://sachachua.com/wp/
Not like the blowhards in COLA. These people USE the products and give
something back.
The loudest wastes of space here talk Linux but earn their bread and
butter using Windows.
Hypocrites?
Only you decide.
|
|
