Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Classic Games (Games) Emulation (Games) Apple

Apple Pulls C64 Emulator From the App Store 580

Posted by kdawson
from the brief-shining-moment dept.
Rob Hearn sends in a piece up at PocketGamer.co.uk on why Apple suddenly pulled Manomio's C64 emulator soon after finally approving it. (El Reg has coverage too.) "It was a glorious few moments for retro gamers when Manomio's C64 emulator was finally approved by Apple and released to the eager, nostalgic iPhone public. Then, calamity! It was gone again. Apparently some wily users figured out how to access the Commodore 64 BASIC system that was originally packaged with the emulator — something that Apple wasn't too happy with, given the nature of the interpreter's code. By setting the keyboard to 'always on,' launching a game and restarting BASIC, players got into the 'empty shell' of their C64 emulator."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Pulls C64 Emulator From the App Store

Comments Filter:
  • And then what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jason daHaus (1419459) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:26PM (#29353641)
    Seriously? What? What can you do from a C64 shell on an iPhone?
  • by bzzfzz (1542813) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:32PM (#29353749)
    I would have laughed if you told me, back in the day, that future device makers would go to great lengths to lock out C64 BASIC so that users could use it to build applications that were so powerful that important third parties would be afraid. I know it's Turing-complete, but still.

    I have never been much of a believer in Stallman's dystopian visions but I'm getting closer to believing them.

  • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:34PM (#29353801)
    As it seems, Apple tries REALLY hard to surpass Microsoft on the list of the most hated IT companies. This stunt they just pulled with the C64 emulator is pure idiocy!
  • by etymxris (121288) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:34PM (#29353811)

    When it comes to proprietary lock-in. Styling and hype is much more exciting than philosophical and economical arguments for having an open platform. I encourage anyone with appreciation of these issues to boycott closed platforms like the iPhone, consoles, and set top cable boxes.

  • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:36PM (#29353855) Homepage
    Spur an interest in programmable platforms and maybe get people interested in being more than just a passive consumer of whatever crap Apple wants to shovel at them through iTunes.
  • Just Silliness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pitr (33016) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:38PM (#29353887)

    I submit that anyone that conceivable _could_ do any damage of any significant nature through the BASIC interpreter on a C64 emulator on an iPhone has almost certainly already jail broken their phone and are already doing much wackier things. Further, if they haven't, then this provides further incentive to jailbreak.

    Add to that the PR nightmare of constantly pulling the same app repeatedly, and it should make both users and developers feel increasingly gun shy about the app store.

  • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:48PM (#29354037) Homepage
    The computing world never turned into quite the dystopia that some feared, because the vertical integrators were mostly killed. Now, in the past I couldn't really care what Apple did because they were always a niche platform. But some disclosure: I hate the iPhone, I want it to die, or at least lose its dominant position. If the future of mobile computing is dominated by a company like Apple, then it's a bleak future. Say what you will about Microsoft's domination of the desktop, but they were never draconian like this.

    In the past being a Windows dev was compared to serfdom. If that's true, then what's being an iPhone developer like?
  • by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:52PM (#29354103)
    The issue is that if they allow this application, they'll have a harder time justifying denying other applications using interpreted languages. That seems like a non-story to me. Everyone has known from the beginning that that was the case, and that the reason was that if they allowed it, there would be no way of controlling it.

    However what I do think is interesting is that they'd allow any emulator at all. Particularly one whose games all depend upon an interpreted language. I'm primarily surprised because of the possibility that someone might be able to get unauthorized apps to run under it, not to mention any liability (real or assumed) a plantiff might try to claim if the emulator ran their code illegally and that Apple rubber stamped it knowing the possibility. Emulators have always been in that sort of gray-area. Apple is more than just the device manufacturer, all apps through the app-store have them functioning as a distributor.
  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:53PM (#29354111) Homepage Journal

    You could write an app store for the C64, featuring C64 only games, but then Apple wouldn't get the cut.

  • Re:Because...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:57PM (#29354169) Journal

    Um...the coding of C64 software was ALL ABOUT using peek and poke in unintended ways!

  • by ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:57PM (#29354173)
    Unlike the iPhone though, that's the whole cost. The iPhone's "real" price is buried in the mandatory contract. Outside of the U.S., you don't have a phone bundled with the plan, but the plan itself is cheaper. So yes, it costs $650 (or equivalent local currency), but the plan only runs $20-40/month, not $60-70/month. Over two years, you will have paid quite a bit more for the iPhone. And if you choose not to upgrade after two years, the savings over the iPhone accrue even faster.
  • Re:Just Silliness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @12:59PM (#29354191)

    I submit that anyone that conceivable _could_ do any damage of any significant nature through the BASIC interpreter on a C64 emulator on an iPhone has almost certainly already jail broken their phone and are already doing much wackier things.

    Apple doesn't care if you jailbreak your own phone. That poses no risk. They care if you write arbitrary code that can be used to hack phones that aren't jailbroken. Thus, no applications that execute arbitrary code from other sources. It's the rule they made and developers have to stick to, even if in this case it is unlikely to be too serious.

    The reasons for this are twofold:

    First, they don't want people running an interpreter and installing apps on top of it, because one new app that runs on top, which Apple does not have an opportunity to test, could violate Apple's agreement with AT&T or break out of the sandbox and install malware. At that point Apple has to disable a whole swath of programs to stop one noncompliant or malicious program.

    Second, Apple doesn't want any runtimes becoming critical components of the iPhone. They don't want Java or .Net or a DOS emulator with intellectual property out of Apple's control to become a Gatekeeper for any significant number of applications on the IPhone. Apple wants to be the only gatekeeper and it's up to the buyer to decide if that is a good thing, a bad thing, or a mix of both.

  • Apple Hates Geeks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:00PM (#29354207) Homepage

    No seriously. Apple hates geeks. This isn't flamebait, btw.

    Apple loves the image-conscious, visual-creative crowd that accepts the functionality they're given, wrapped up in beautifully designed packages.

    But ultimately Apple's corporate strategy can be summed up in one word: Control. They want to control where you buy your music, what you do with your devices, and how you interact with other users. All of this 'control' of course is driven by profit motives.

    But geeks ultimately represent a loss of control. Geeks love to tinker... They love to expand functionality. They're innovators. And worst of all from Apple's perspective: They create options.

    Options are the enemy of a carefully structured system which drives users towards Apple's sacred points-of-purchase.

    Options are the opposite of 'control'.

    For all of Apple's "Think Different" public image, the reality is that Apple encourages nothing of the sort: "Think Alike" is the mission. And they prove it at every turn.

    Apple fanboys will probably mod this flamebait. It isn't. I have multiple computers and phones, and own an iPhone and a Mac. But I'm constantly being made aware that my PC represents a nearly infinite amount of options in every usage category -- where Apple railroads me into a pre-approved (albeit always compatible) solution.

  • Nonstory (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:02PM (#29354257) Homepage

    This is a non-story. They weren't allowed to sell the app because it had BASIC. They snuck BASIC in, and Apple pulled it since they weren't allowed to sell it.

    This is not news.

    We don't need the "Apple should allow..." discussion. We had that 2 days ago when this was approved. And the last app that did something. And two before. And the next one.

    This isn't a story. "Apple does exactly what it said it would." Call CNN.

  • by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:06PM (#29354307) Homepage
    I don't know about that... with notable counterexamples (remember 'DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run?' and Netscape), Microsoft has generally been pretty hands off, encouraging people to develop whatever they want. It's somewhat ironic, but Windows Mobile is arguably the most open platform of all. It has no restrictions or policies, no centralized distribution channel, and it doesn't restrict your access to the hardware. My next phone will probably be Android, but even that doesn't give you root.
  • Re:What a dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renderer of Evil (604742) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:07PM (#29354317) Homepage

    Yeah, I agree. The developer is a grade-A moron. Initially, the App was rejected because of this and after lots of back and forth Apple approved it with a condition of removing the BASIC interpreter. Developer thought it would be cute to hide, and make it available as an easter egg. Guess that plan backfired.

    Without a doubt, they needlessly burned a lot of money because of lost potential sales. Apple might even return the favor by dragging its feet and not approving the app for weeks or months.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:07PM (#29354325)

    More and more companies are looking to Apple as an example on how to lock down their platforms.

    True. Hopefully some others will come up with a better model that provides the advantages of the iPhone's lock-in without the disadvantages.

    The only real solution is to legalize and strengthen fair use, so that jail breaking and other DRM circumvention is completely legal and encouraged.

    That actually won't matter much. The real solution is to deal with the antitrust issues in adjacent markets so we can have properly operating competition and someone can make a better solution without having to kowtow to AT&T and the MPAA and RIAA and several other criminal gatekeepers.

    The US and other governments should also declare Apple's App Store to be an illegal monopoly for their platform...

    That's not how antitrust law should or does work. The iPhone is only one (admittedly high profile) player in a very large and diverse marketplace. Apple has done nothing to undermine any market in their technical decisions for the iPhone (although some of their partners have). In terms of antitrust law, in fact, Apple is one of the victims being forced to make choices that get them fewer sales because of illegal actions by their partners.

    If people don't like iPhones being locked down, they can effectively vote with their wallets and buy any number of other phones both for use on AT&T's network or another. Apple has, in no way leveraged any monopoly influence in any market in what they're doing with the ecosystem for apps on the iPhone.

  • by argent (18001) <peter@NOsPam.slashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:13PM (#29354405) Homepage Journal

    If you want a versatile, easy to use, high end phone, but don't want more than that, get an iPhone. If you want a real smartphone, get a real smartphone. If Apple doesn't want to sell a general purpose smart handheld, that's their prerogative. There's plenty of options right now.

  • by greenguy (162630) <estebandido@gmaGINSBERGil.com minus poet> on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:19PM (#29354485) Homepage Journal

    This summarizes why I don't own an iPhone. They're very slick and all, but I've been spoiled by running Linux for years. The concept of needing someone's approval to run software on my hardware is a non-starter for me. I'll decide that for myself, thanks very much.

  • by Crash Culligan (227354) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:21PM (#29354509) Journal

    Really now, it's not like the iPhone is a closed black-box environment, for which no outsider can create software [apple.com].

    However, in these modern times with object-oriented multithreaded programming, BASIC is kind of a throwback, don't you think? It may have been nice as the "gateway drug" of programming languages, but these days it's barely a first step.

    I'm not necessarily trying to defend Apple here; their decision to decline any app with programmability is still a curious, regrettable, and philosophically indefensible one. (Do symbolic environments count, like you'd find on a programmable calculator? What if that environment allowed the display of English text? What if the environment had English equivalents for some symbols?) But it is possible for people to buck the trend.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:25PM (#29354567)

    Yeah, but you're stuck with Sprint, the Apple of the cell phone world.

  • Re:Just Silliness (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jpmorgan (517966) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:27PM (#29354605) Homepage
    That doesn't make sense. Code that can break out of an emulator sandbox would be exploiting a security vulnerability. You could apply the same argument to say that Apple shouldn't allow email on the iPhone, because that could exploit some vulnerability and install malware. Which is particularly ironic given the iPhone's SMS vulnerability. An emulator is just a program that takes some user input and does something with it... there's nothing special there and any program which 'takes some user input and does something with it' is equally problematic.
  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:28PM (#29354621)
    Your post reminds me of the hundreds of "the iPod is dead, here is its successor" posts that I read back in the day.

    I'm just sayin'.
  • by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:49PM (#29354903)

    It was kinda fun to live in that age when people were gullible enough to accept ANYTHING that popped up on screen.

    About 80% of my friends/family still appear to live in that age.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:51PM (#29354955)
    It's ironic that Apple wouldn't exist without Steve Wozniak, one of the geekiest tinkerers of all time.
  • by pedrop357 (681672) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:52PM (#29354961)

    It's not their product. It's mine. I don't buy things that not only don't function the way I want but also actively deny my ability to change it's function.

    If I want to perform differently, I better have the option to turn or ability to modify it do so.

    My car (05 WRX) has a vast aftermarket for people who want something different. There's even open source software to alter engine operations www.romraider.com.

    My TV can be opened and rewired. Maybe I want more speakers, maybe I want to integrate it into my wall. Whatever.

    This doesn't even include the people who have JTAG programmers and alter all sorts of household appliances.

  • by LandDolphin (1202876) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:53PM (#29354999)
    You don't rewire or alter your car, but you coudl if you wanted too. There is a whole culture of people that do.
  • by foqn1bo (519064) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:54PM (#29355011)
    Which is exactly why Apple gives away all their development tools for free, and why the built their current flagship software product on top of BSD, drawing significant interest and new users from the Linux crowd.

    Apple doesn't hate geeks, it hates the way many geeks think that because they're so smart, they're automatically good at everything. The Unix that is OS X and the iPhone platform provide plenty of room for tinkering -- perhaps less so on the iPhone -- but it's not like everything Mac is a lifeless void. What Apple doesn't like you doing is trying to one-up them at their own game. For instance, if Apple made it easy for you install themes the way you might in any number of Linux window managers, chances are pretty good that you'll just make your computer hideously ugly and then have the audacity to show it to all your friends. This isn't a chance they'd like to take, being that their niche is in good design (how depressing is it that good design is a niche market?).

    These beautifully designed packages you passingly deride are what make computers usable. In the case of the iPhone, seriously, the vast majority of apps in the store are awful, even adhering to Apple's design guidelines and making use of their standard UI toolkits. Imagine what we would end up with if programmers had total control over the system. In my eyes, it would result in a sharp decrease of users as the typical iPhone would be less stable, potentially less secure, and certainly more confusing as apps would depart more significantly from the accepted set of standards. Practically every rule in their SDK license has some similar reason behind it, even if a few of them are overkill. Background processes can drain battery life. Interpreted code environments (especially user-generated code, which is the biggest concern IMHO) can make it difficult for Apple to evaluate the spectrum of how an app might perform in real use (or fail to perform), which is a real concern for those who care about all the little details of packaging and interface design.

    It used to bother me how much Apple locks things down, but I have to admit that they've been really successful in creating a pleasing, easy to use, and reasonably flexible system that also brings with it a thriving market ecosystem. Essentially none of the other smartphone manufacturers and platforms have come even close to this. It certainly makes you wonder if an open platform is really the solution to the "iPhone Killer" problem.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:56PM (#29355025)

    No seriously. Apple hates geeks. This isn't flamebait, btw.

    No, not flamebait, just idiocy. Apple is largely made of geeks. I find it hard to find a more apt description of a former NextStep employee or a former BSD developer or the guy who wrote and maintains CUPS.

    But ultimately Apple's corporate strategy can be summed up in one word: Control.

    Actually, Apple's strategy with regard to both the iPod and iPhone has been about limited, but polished functionality. Blackberry has been all about providing the most and most varied functionality. Apple has been about providing a limited subset of that functionality, but polished so it is really, really easy. In order to do that, and maintain that for submissions from others, they maintain significant control; but that is not the core philosophy.

    I would note that this strategy is not one designed to cater to geeks. That is certainly not their target market and if you are a hardcore geek you might be happier using a product that does cater to your market segment. There are lots of other options. Go for it.

    For all of Apple's "Think Different" public image, the reality is that Apple encourages nothing of the sort: "Think Alike" is the mission. And they prove it at every turn.

    I'd actually say Apple does think differently. Their business model has been different from what others have tried and it has worked for them quite well. It just hasn't targeted you. Get over it.

    For their Mac computers, on the other hand, Apple has been targeting geeks pretty heavily and it has worked. Look around at Blackhat or Defcon or any technology related conference and the truth is evident. OS X developers (some of whom are also iPhone developers) are geeks and they target geeks in OS X. That's why they have a bash shell. That's why they pulled in UI features from X11 to make the UNIX geeks looking to switch happy. Normal users don't care about or use multiple desktops and never drop to a shell. That's just for geeks. I know a few people at Apple. One used to work for Cray doing OS development. He's about as big of a geek as you can imagine.

    Apple fanboys will probably mod this flamebait. It isn't. I have multiple computers and phones, and own an iPhone and a Mac. But I'm constantly being made aware that my PC represents a nearly infinite amount of options...

    It's funny because you did not provide even one example of how the PC provides more options than your Mac... something rather critical to your premise, no?

  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:58PM (#29355045)

    In a way, if you're a big enough geek he's right.

    And, if you're a big enough fan of Apple's elegant UI design, he's wrong. But, if you hate Apple, he's right. But... I think you get my point.

    There will be tons of anecdotal evidence supporting or refuting his claim but the simple fact remains - it's an incredibly similar claim, with the exact same anecdotal evidence supporting and refuting, that has been made about the iPod a thousand times before. And we know how those claims played out.

    No, I'm not claiming the iPhone is untouchable. No, I'm not claiming it's perfect (I don't own one despite wanting one very much - the contract terms through Rogers (in Canada) are so unfavourable that I'd rather do without). I'm not claiming that it's the best smart phone available nor am I claiming that there aren't other smart phones that are better, for a variety of reasons. What I am claiming is that when someone says "here's the iPhone-killer", I immediately shunt virtually everything that follows into the same category as posts about iPod-killers, which is to say I ignore them.

    If people need to hype their product by claiming it's an iPhone-killer, then it probably isn't. The iPhone-killer won't need to sell itself as such - it will just come out and be more successful than the iPhone, on it's own merits.

  • Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Duradin (1261418) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:07PM (#29355165)

    Millions might be a tad high there Obi-wan.

    There's probably a total of two people who own an iphone/touch and bought the app and actually planned on doing something with the C64 BASIC.

    Most of the people complaining probably wouldn't even think of owning anything Apple and BASIC is just something for them to make a show of why they'll never own an iPhone (and to look "cool" to all their F/OSS friends while doing so).

    OMG! They pulled an app I'd never buy from a phone I'll never own over a feature I'd never use!!! I must complain loudly and vigorously to show how hardcore linux I am!

  • by AnalPerfume (1356177) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:08PM (#29355169)
    Duplicating functionality? I wonder if "copy & paste" could be described as that? Maybe that's why it was missing from the iPhone when it first appeared. Then again, if it could be classed as that, Apple seem to be contradicting their own rules. /sarcasm.

    Seriously, this is just one in a long list of stories which suggest Apple are barmy. Each new example of a Stalin-like appreciation of freedom sees another few previously loyal Apple customers cringe and refuse to defend Apple as they once did. People have tipping points they may not even recognize, at some point they will say "enough is enough" and take a stand against the authority figure they see as unnecessarily restricting some free choices.

    Maybe Apple believe they have the smart phone market sewn up, and between the lock in and heavy marketing they can afford to piss customers off. That may well change when Android has a few years maturity on the market and Apple find themselves a niche option for people willing to pay the Apple premium. Maybe by that time the damage will be done, and Apple will have plenty of disgruntled ex-customers who won't buy Apple again, the same way Microsoft have created a LOT of ex-Windows users who won't touch Windows again.
  • by Tweenk (1274968) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:12PM (#29355221)

    A few weeks ago I found a Linux laptop on display in an electronics store, logged into the root shell. The urge to type in 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda1" or "rm -rf /" was very hard to resist.

  • by changa (197280) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:15PM (#29355259) Homepage

    sys 49152
  • Re:Nonstory (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:34PM (#29355507)

    I can't believe this comment was modded up as 'Insightful'

    This is a non-story. They weren't allowed to sell the app because it had BASIC. They snuck BASIC in, and Apple pulled it since they weren't allowed to sell it.

    The story is WHY Apple didn't want the code that got "snuck in," not whether it was snuck in or even whether Apple followed through on what they failed to police after they'd made it an issue...

  • by dyfet (154716) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:38PM (#29355585) Homepage

    Dystopias usually are meant to illustrate what can go wrong and where it could potentially lead taken to it's logical extreme. However, that is not always the case. For example, unfortunately, western governments seem to have decided that "1984" was not a dystopic warning, but rather a blueprint to implement!

  • Re:Android? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mister Whirly (964219) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @02:44PM (#29355687) Homepage
    It isn't about the hardware, it's about the marketing. Apple has been selling hardware that costs more than the other brands do for a long time - because of clever marketing.
  • by dAzED1 (33635) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @04:21PM (#29357459) Homepage Journal

    it is not your product. You do not own the product, the IP, anything at all to do with the product. You have a "right to use," and that's it. You couldn't take it and reverse-engineer it, replicating it in your own Chinese factories. There are a *lot* of things you know you cannot legally do to it.

    What you can do, however, is unlock the thing and install whatever you want on it. You're not stopped from doing this. The updates don't work well for it, but the updates are for a specific image, and unlocking it changes that image; if I install an nvidia driver for linux and then update my kernel through a normal package manager, guess what? I won't have dual-screen anymore (since I'm using VMs...). So, I have to set up the driver again - just like you would need to unlock the iPhone again if you wanted to install an update. You will not - at all - be at risk of going to jail for unlocking your iPhone. You will not have broken a single law. You won't have even voided the warranty on it. There is *absolutely nothing* stopping you from doing it, so far as civil or criminal activities are concerned, if you want to do it. Which means, if you want to complain...it's because you merely want to complain.

    The sense of entitlement in the newer OSS community members is just...sickening, really. I don't go burning down butcher shops because I'm vegetarian. A valid complain about the iPhone is the poor performance of the 3g network and the poor lifespan of the battery. But the rest of it? Just childish.

    Mod me -3 troll again if you like, mods - but the "insightful" people saying they want everything and anything for free and without limitations...well, those are the trolls, imnsho. You get an iPhone...it is NOT YOUR PRODUCT. To say that...wow. Yeah.

  • Re:Looks like... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @04:40PM (#29357827) Homepage
    It's not called "jailbreaking". It's called "Run/Stop - Restore".
  • by Trogre (513942) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @05:21PM (#29358419) Homepage

    It certainly is. And more telling that he's not there now.

  • by Froboz23 (690392) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @06:14PM (#29359125)

    Honestly I think the vast 99.8 % majority of folks could really care less about a C64 emulator on an iPhone.

    The market seems to think otherwise. From TFA:

    "The developer is now hard at work setting up a meeting with Apple to clarify matters and get C64 back to the retro gaming public who put the app in the top 20 paid games list across most territories inside of two days, and even made it into the top 10 in certain areas before disappearing."

    You'd be hard pressed to show me an iPhone App that's more fun than M.U.L.E.

  • by Kalriath (849904) * on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @06:54PM (#29359545)

    No, he's quite right. He said that a vast 99.8% of folks could care less - which is pretty damn obvious from the sales.

  • by ashpool7 (18172) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:45PM (#29361147) Homepage Journal

    Some of use prefer the over protective parents because we can get more important stuff done when we're not forced to waste time fending off bears and skunks in the scary wilds.

    Pretty good analogy there.

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks

Working...