Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • That'd be "Osborne Effect"; not drug related, petulance related, or even dog related (as far as I know).

    Paul (still eyeing off a 20" imac for home; aah, the small joy of having a consulting fund that has to be emptied by the end of the year...)
  • At this point, I see Apple as just another Unix vendor. As long as the software runs and meets expectations, then the underlying hardware really doesn't matter. Anything we get up until the switch will have full support anyway.
  • Yeah. I just wrote an entry about that and a lot more besides because I was getting tired of writing the same stuff over and over. Take a lot: On high hopes, misconceptions, and Apple on x86 [plasmasturm.org]

    So far I’ve not seen any speculation that wasn’t obviously bunk.

    • So far I’ve not seen any speculation that wasn’t obviously bunk.

      Yeah. I especially like the Going with Intel, because it has DRM Features On-Chip. Riiiiight. Apple decided to go with pretty much the only CPU that offers a CPU ID to make the iTunes store suck. And that was the consensus opinion of their brightest minds and their bestest hardware designers...

      I hate to get all obvious-in-hindsight, but Steve explained everything in perfectly clear terms in his keynote: no 3GHz G5s, no