Slashdot Mirror

It has zip to do with DNS caching other than storing what services are being made available on your machine to your network. It binds on a multicast IP.

False. mDNSResponder is also used for unicast. The command to flush the DNS cache given by the GP is exactly how Apple tells you to do it using Mountain Lion.

I'm pretty sure that even "base OS" of iOS 6 includes a bit more than WebKit, compiler tools, stdc++ lib and iconv.

</trolled>

Problem is, it's not an 'all-bad' or 'all-good' issue. It's bad, because Google is obviously not open here, and have been making moves to keep things less open. It's good though, because a lot of their code IS open source. So each side has something to argue.

If you really want to troll the Android fanboys, point out that Apple is just as open, because their base OS is completely open.

Wait, What?

Several companies are already doubling as a label.
Look here: https://play.google.com/artist...
And here: https://www.apple.com/itunes/w...
http://www.tunecore.com/index/...

And the Music industry isn't in a position to take on Google and Itunes and Amazon. Those three companies decide not to sell your crap-music, at your crap-prices, and you are pretty much dead in the water as a label.

Artists are getting smarter. They are starting to care about the license terms, and while they may release their first hits to a label more and more of them are declining to take long term contracts and trying the indi market.

Funny how I have a sd card in my ipad...

http://store.apple.com/us/prod...
http://store.apple.com/us/prod...

Funny how I have a sd card in my ipad...

http://store.apple.com/us/prod...
http://store.apple.com/us/prod...

At every large company I worked at (Apple, HP, SGI) they told us to help patent "stuff" as a defensive measure.

Patent TROLLS are the aggressors, do you blame these companies for planning ahead and preparing to defend themselves from bullies?

https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/03/02Apple-Sues-HTC-for-Patent-Infringement.html
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=460106&jumpid=reg_r1002_usen_c-001_title_r0001#.Uvu1ptgvA9Y
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=170196#.Uvu1XNgvA9Y
http://slashdot.org/story/06/10/25/1226209/sgi-sues-ati-for-patent-infringement

An offence is, it is said, the best defence...

It seems like this would be something she'd be able to track down from the internet using her Google account, but I wasn't able to find anything doing a quick search. After all, even Apple provides one for the iPhone.

1. Christians are a people apart. Either you are a Christian or you are not.
2. Being a Christian is more important than being a human being. Read that sentence again slowly.
3. Christians are the minority.
4. Christians are under constant attack "by society".
5. Christians are afraid of death.
6. Christians will be saved from death by their god.
7. You can either be an educated human being capable of reason or you can be a Christian enpowered by faith. You cannot be both.
8. The fundamental axiom of Christians is that there is a god. This axiom cannot be contested.
9. This is subtle: Everyone believes in god until they fall into error. You cannot start with the axiom that god does not exist. Parse that again: No one can begin with the axiom that god does not exist, because if such a person existed their existence would contest the fundamental axiom of Christians. This cannot be tolerated. Therefore all such people must have started with the Christian axiom and then fallen into error.

From these deductions I conclude that since the theory of evolution does not require a god, only a mechanism for mutation, that this contests their fundamental axiom which if proven false implies nothing can save Christians from death, and thus Christians allow their fear of death to rule them. Since this kind of nonsense does not occur in Europe or in those states which don't have a voting majority of fundamentalist Christians I conclude further that this mental illness is not an attribute of Christianity but only of bizarre fundamentalist sects instead.

Wait, what?

As someone typing this missive on OSX 10.9, I can tell you right now that "locked" or "closed" is simply wrong. We'll start with this as Exhibit A. I defy you to show me a similar Windows site that doesn't require a metric ton of money (e.g. that abortion they refer to as "shared source.")

Also, your experience is just that - your experience. It's subjective. My experience differs greatly, and I have yet to find a program I want/need for this OS that isn't not only 'just as good', but better in many aspects. There was only once when I found any trouble at all (my ancient PPC-only copy of Quake3 wouldn't run, but one quick (and free!) drop-in later, it runs just fine).

Same with Linux, really. It doesn't get any easier than to go hit up the Ubuntu software 'store', and download whatever you need or desire.

This sounds an awful lot like the arguments I heard in the early 90s on open systems vs proprietary. Your points are all valid but do they make the iOS platform sufficiently better for it to carry on? Given that Android is actively developed, just how long are the advantages you describe going to be an issue?

Maybe?

Large chunks of iOS are open source, so I don't know if I buy the "iOS will die because Android has more momentum." Android up until 4.4 was still using iOS's web renderer and JavaScript runtime, and finally in 4.4 they forked it.
http://opensource.apple.com/
(A lot of iOS stuff is in the Mac section.)

The private components of iOS are still being actively developed, and share a lot of foundation with the Mac, which is also being actively developed.

I think, like any platform, continued development of iOS will be reliant on it's market share. If market share dips below 15%, you'll see interest wane. But in the US, majority share is still going back and forth between iOS and Android. Worldwide, we typically see iOS more around the 30% mark, but iOS active usage share and app store activity is far higher. So I think we're looking at years before we settle whether or not Android or iOS will become the only OS worth someone's development time, if that ever gets settled at all. I don't think a Windows style OS monopoly in the OS industry would be good at all. And as Google has taken more share, we've seen them becoming more abusive of their power (such as clamping down on source availability and certification for Android.)

For now I see Android competing with iOS but I do think it's just a matter of time before there will be no advantage for Apple to continue developing their own OS. Woz is right, Apple could easily find themselves in the same situation as Blackberry and they need to be ready to deal with it.

And that is a possibility. But it's also a possibility that Google could stop working on Android. Google gives Android away, makes no money from it, and puts a lot of support into it. I know, similar arguments have been made against Linux, but hear me out... If you're Google, and Android is only being done to keep people on Google services and ads, the best course of action is to hand over Android to Samsung (which, to be frank, is the only Android manufacturer seeing significant adoption), make a services agreement with Samsung, and then re-build their services agreement with Apple. That gives Google %100 share of the market, excluding the insignificant Microsoft bits, and no cost of developing Android.

If you're Apple, that possibility looks ugly enough to keep you developing on iOS. Plus Apple gets the advantage that if they want to build a new device category like a watch or something akin to a new class like a tablet, they have enough expertise and resources in house to rearrange all the OS bits in a way they see fit.

There is also the Mac. Even if Apple dropped iOS in favor of Android, they can't stop developing iOS. iOS is Mac OS X, and Apple still sells Macs. So even if this all plays out the way it all seems to in Woz's head, Apple can't even stop iOS development.

Woz should have understood that, which makes me wonder about him. He's spent enough time at Apple, he understands Apple values knowing and controlling both the software and hardware, and he should understand that iOS and Mac share source and their fates are intertwined. I'm not sure if he realized that advocating for Apple to spin down iOS development isn't possible with the Mac existing. I've previously had a high opinion of Woz, but he's not thinking like an engineer or innovator here, which worries me. Apple adopting Android would make them a lot like Nokia, Dell, or HP. And look where those companies are now. I'm not even sure Woz is correct. If Blackberry had adopted Android would they have survived? Or would they have been run off the market by Samsung like every other company that put their lot in with Android (except for Samsung?)

Since this bill would make Find My iPhone's "Activation Lock", which I would bet money is patented, a requirement for Android and Windows devices.

And i suspect Paul McCartney and the owners of the rights to apple music might disagree :-)

and I suspect they won't.
From APPLE Press Release February 2007:

CUPERTINO, California and LONDON—Apple® Inc. and The Beatles’ company Apple Corps Ltd. are pleased to announce the parties have entered into a new agreement concerning the use of the name “Apple” and apple logos which replaces their 1991 Agreement. Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes®. The terms of settlement are confidential.

newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million.

Apple certified refurbished store:

http://store.apple.com/us/brow...

Other than that check the usual used sites, there's usually a few older MacBooks out there. I'd make sure whatever you get will run Mavericks, not because it's so wonderful, but because it should be fairly modern hardware. And $200 for Logic Pro X, to me anyway, is just a fantastic deal. Add on Main Stage 3 for another $30.

One thing that you'll get that no one seems to be pointing out is the lack of surprises when there's a minor patch or update. When I was running Ubuntu it seemed like every new release would cause major damage to drivers and any software that had tweaked .conf files, and the updates came fast and furious before and after a major release. After moving to OS X a lot of my routine maintenance became a thing of the past. And I can still run just about any OSS software although sometimes I need to compile it myself.

How much of OS X is open source?

All of it except for the UI layer.

...and except for a many of the kexts that ship with it, and except for the AFP server, and except for the SMB server as of Lion, and various other bits as well.

I don't know the source code line counts, but I suspect more lines are not open source than are.

Much of the internet is powered by real UNIX systems (BSD, you know, its where OSX took much of the core OS from). Learn some history, OSX was from NextStep. If not for that "reverse-merger" you would probably still be using a co-operative multitasking system (remember the good old days when a bad app crashed the entire system?)

Apple might be cheaper if they didnt insist on having ridiculous profit margins and an army of tools lined up to pay them. After all they source everything from China the same as every other computer manufacturer.

You might want to take a look at the market share reports before you determine that OSX is "superior".
Even your "beloved" apple believes in opensource, at least when they take it and incorporate it in OSX
"In addition, Apple uses software created by the Open Source community" - http://www.apple.com/opensourc...

Much of the functionality OSX relies on is opensource (SAMBA being a key one up until 10.7)
"Apple began bundling Samba with Mac OS X 10.2, enabling Mac users to connect to Microsoft's Windows file and network directory services based on SMB (Server Message Block, a protocol also known as Windows File Sharing)." - Source is apple's website

One of my favourite postings from Apple Fanboi's is the quote about how much money apple has in the bank. Not sure why they are proud they overpaid for their products and the company(apple) hides this money in offshore accounts to avoid US taxes.

good luck next time you're in a foreign country trying to buy food using for loops and if statements

Actually, anyone can do just that these days.

You can believe what you want. Or you can download the source, compile it, and know the truth.

How much of OS X is open source?

All of it except for the UI layer.

>>The result it that some software turns into a hand-out for companies that, in the long term, are trying to make free software disappear.
>
> No company is trying to do that, especially not one that is relying on free software for their products.

Apple is.

Their current flagship platform is openly hostile to Free Software and even the concept of open systems where the end user has full control over the hardware.

Near as I can tell, Apple isn't doing anything to try to make Free software disappear. They are, however, creating many alternatives ever since GPLv3 made it unviable for them to continue to participate in that community as much. Even now, though, if you look at all the packages they use and contribute to as part of MacOS X (the core of which is all open source, although most of it isn't Free Software), there are many GPL packages among them: http://www.opensource.apple.co... . It does seem that with companies like Apple actively participating in Open Source but not as actively participating in Free Software, that to a certain degree it's proving many of the anti-GPL folks' points and probably really pissing off RMS.

If a recording artist is his own label, how would he go about getting his music onto FM or satellite radio or onto the playlists of popular Internet streaming music providers, such as Pandora, Spotify, and foreign counterparts?

Information for artists submitting to Pandora

Information for artists submitting to Spotify

Getting your music on iTunes

In short, that depends on the service they want their music on. Different services have different procedures.

And how should a songwriter make sure that he didn't accidentally copy parts of a popular song when writing his own?

As you so helpfully pointed out, they don't/can't always. The human mind is prone to subconscious influence; there's no way around that.

RIAA-affiliated labels add value through promotion and through their affiliated music publishers.

True, although it's debatable whether the value that they add is greater than the cost that they impose. The artists that they promote are like lottery winners: the lucky few that you can point to as indicators that the system is beneficial to artists and the public as a whole. In a nutshell, they're a great example of a selection bias.

I'm sure it will get crushed, but it will cost someone a good deal of money. That's the issue. Even many bad patent and copyright claims can be defeated in court, but you have to have the money to get there. In part, this is the fault of morons working for trademark and patent offices, and in part it is due to lawyers, of which there are far too many, and far too few severe repercussions for abuse of process.

You failed to blame the real culprit - the soulless corporation (and their zombie leadership) that requests this broad of a trademark. The CEO is probably having a great laugh at all of this, but we should really not let them off the hook.

It's not a question of "hate the game/playa" but more that bad playas can and do change the game for the worse and so should be punished to set an example.. What if Apple had trademarked the word Air for computing products and handheld devices [1]? Note they didn't - they're specific trademarks of actual products.

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/in...

You know, I'm not even sure it's the corporation that is to blame. The application for the mark in ancillary goods and services such as clothing,etc. and maybe the mark CANDY itself is probably the result of the trademark attorney trying to get the best result (read broadest trademark) for the applicant.

I mean, King also applied for the marks CANDY CRUSH and CANDY CRUSH SAGA both as character marks and in a stylised logo format. I'm not entirely unconvinced that this was what they were initially aiming for and that CANDY by itself was just a "let's try it if it sticks" freeroll. That the examiner let it through though is kind of mind-boggling IMO.

I'm sure it will get crushed, but it will cost someone a good deal of money. That's the issue. Even many bad patent and copyright claims can be defeated in court, but you have to have the money to get there. In part, this is the fault of morons working for trademark and patent offices, and in part it is due to lawyers, of which there are far too many, and far too few severe repercussions for abuse of process.

You failed to blame the real culprit - the soulless corporation (and their zombie leadership) that requests this broad of a trademark. The CEO is probably having a great laugh at all of this, but we should really not let them off the hook.

It's not a question of "hate the game/playa" but more that bad playas can and do change the game for the worse and so should be punished to set an example.. What if Apple had trademarked the word Air for computing products and handheld devices [1]? Note they didn't - they're specific trademarks of actual products.

[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/in...

Memset may be calling something functionally equivalent to that code (when called with '0' as the char to fill with), but it's highly unlikely to be calling that particular code. Typically, a somewhat more architecture-dependent optimized implementation will be used, e.g. http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-167/string.subproj/memset.c .

you could buy the feet alone from apple support for $25. link
a bunch on amazon prime for under $10. link

They've had the same QC issues with Nvidia chips in MBP's in the past (GT8600M). Last time they extended the warranties. This time.... ?

Mainstreaming reporting started in the last few days. The issue has been reported consistently for nearly a year. I and many other impact users have reported faults in stores, reported via Apple Product Feedback in forums and written to Tim Cook to complain. Not only do they ignore the issues reported on the forum but they also delete posts with links to online forums, news stories and petitions. Nice work Apple.....

Apple do little on the issue and offer you a (paid for) repair service to fix this systemic fault. The repair being a replacement board that many users report fails again anyway.

False.

While those instructions exist, they don't always work. I've signed up without needing a card before. I've also signed up my son without a needing a credit card, but it took several tries. I couldn't get the same thing to work for my wife's account later on, even after following that page's instructions step by step. I've tried several times on OSX & Windows, then iPhone & iPad. I even created new email accounts to test it, but that none button just didn't exist for me. I had a card that was expiring at the time, so I just broke down and entered that information after wasting an hour trying, but they do lie with that page when it doesn't always work.

I've even had to create a new account for myself one time because my first one started prompting me for a credit card for updates, when I've never installed anything but free apps. It's deceptive business practice, if they provide instructions for something that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. I really wish all those free apps would remain available on their home pages instead of moving to the App Store only.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3955842?tstart=0

Maybe there was a step i missed as well, or something wrong with how i did it?

I recall it telling me i had two id's (itunes and apple ID) or such. I was then presented with a form with the top section being for CC details.

I dont recall seeing an option to skip this, and when i tried it just highlighted things in red indicating an error in the form.

Literally the first result on google for how to do it: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2534?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

I googled "how to set up apple id without credit card" and pressed "I'm feeling lucky".

Seriously, this is not hard.

Rewriting back end stuff really doesn't constitute a new operating system unless it is a complete backend rewrite.

Sounds like pedantry.

If I as a user cannot tell the difference then it probably isn't a new system.

Depends on the user. Most of their under the hood improvements seem to focus on battery life and memory conservation. So if you have a Mac Pro with 32 gigs of ram, you probably DGAF. If you do most of your work on a laptop on the go, you might.

1) allow you to create an account with out FORCING you to enter a valid Credit card. I just created an ApplieID to update my mac. Guess what, it absolutely refused to allow me to move forward without a credit card number. Why? So i could download the free updates using the "app store"?

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2534 - "Creating an iTunes Store, App Store, iBooks Store, and Mac App Store account without a credit card"

The first hit from Googleing "creating apple id without credit card" - which is the third suggestion after typing "creating ap". Jesus, that was hard.

But why didn't you have an AppleID from registering your Mac in the first place? Too paranoid?

False.

ipfw was replaced by pf in 10.7 Lion. Their man pages sometimes lag, I think. For 10.9, see:

ipfw.8
pf.conf.5

Actually it's both for FreeBSD at least. They added PF, but never bothered ripping out IPFW, or IPFilter for that matter:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls.html

I prefer PF's syntax though.

ipfw was replaced by pf in 10.7 Lion. Their man pages sometimes lag, I think. For 10.9, see:

ipfw.8
pf.conf.5

Actually it's both for FreeBSD at least. They added PF, but never bothered ripping out IPFW, or IPFilter for that matter:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls.html

I prefer PF's syntax though.

ipfw was replaced by pf in 10.7 Lion. Their man pages sometimes lag, I think. For 10.9, see: ipfw.8 pf.conf.5

ipfw was replaced by pf in 10.7 Lion. Their man pages sometimes lag, I think. For 10.9, see: ipfw.8 pf.conf.5

http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-pro/specs/ --not courting business? They also still sell Xserve.

here is an app from 2011 doing exactly that: video (there are a few): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAWQ-YT8BvE android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rdklein.radioactivity&hl=en iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/radioactivitycounter/id464004677?mt=8

Only for a very limited definition of run. I had dropped calls increase to about 1 in 5 and the software made the phone run sluggish. It cannot be upgraded beyond that and upgrading to that point is a mistake if you actually like to use your phone.

You are all calling me a troll, but I don't like being extorted into hardware upgrades due to lack of continued support for older hardware.

They're calling you a troll because you lied.

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.

It was upgraded to iOS4, but it had some sort of bug, so you switched to a platform that was currently far worse for updates. Statement above? False.

Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.

Again, false. Do you mean that Mavericks was buggy for you? If you supplied the actual model number and configuration I could tell you why you couldn't upgrade (maybe a bad DIMM so don't meet 2 GB requirement?) .

All second generation MacBook Pros meet the OS X Mavericks System Requirements. As do the bulk of 1st generation MacBook Pros (2007 on).

Not that the truth really matters, since apparently you wanted to switch laptops to get a German keyboard anyways. And you wonder why we call you a troll?

---

As I went to post this, noticed in another post that you had defined it as "late 2006 2nd generation". Either wiki is wrong, or your description is. To my knowledge, that is first generation. Either way, good luck getting over 7 years out of your Lenovo laptop.

That is just flat-out wrong. There are several models which can run 10.8 but cannot run 10.9.

Apple's listed specs look the same to me. The MacBook list was consolidated but they are equivalent.

OS X Mavericks: System Requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5842
To install Mavericks, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid-2007 or later)
MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later),
MacBook Pro (15-inch or 17-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or later)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or later)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac also needs:
OS X Mountain Lion, Lion, or Snow Leopard v10.6.8 already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

OS X Mountain Lion system requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5444
To install Mountain Lion, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac needs:
OS X v10.6.8 or OS X Lion already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

That is just flat-out wrong. There are several models which can run 10.8 but cannot run 10.9.

Apple's listed specs look the same to me. The MacBook list was consolidated but they are equivalent.

OS X Mavericks: System Requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5842
To install Mavericks, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid-2007 or later)
MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later),
MacBook Pro (15-inch or 17-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or later)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or later)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac also needs:
OS X Mountain Lion, Lion, or Snow Leopard v10.6.8 already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

OS X Mountain Lion system requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5444
To install Mountain Lion, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac needs:
OS X v10.6.8 or OS X Lion already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

No it won't. It will become obsolete faster as it's completely unmaintainable.

Assuming the non-geeks even bother to upgrade anything (the vast majority don't, but let's assume for a moment:)

Software maintenance? I could be running a 2007-era Intel MBP right now and still use the latest OS version, binaries, etc. Let me read that to you in practical terms: I can be using the latest OS/apps on a 7-year-old Apple laptop.

Hardware Maintenance? Wait, what's the point? For Macs, you usually just slap more RAM and/or a bigger HDD in it, and you're good for another year or three before performance suffers enough to force an upgrade.

The one and only real issue I'd seen with Macs and obsolescence as per hardware? The switch from PPC (G4/5) to Intel, but evne that was smoothed over for a few years with fat binaries. This allowed me to keep a 2004 vintage dual G5 desktop running just fine until I gave it away earlier this year due to performance gripes.

With a PC, I can do this myself or pay someone else. This isn't an option with a Mac.

Wrong-O; if you want to swap mobos on an HP or Dell desktop, you're stuck in the same boat, because the parts are proprietary enough to require you go to them for the goods (assuming thos parts are still for sale.) Laptops even moreso.

Now if you're white-boxing it, that's a whole different story - but you're still paying anyway just to chase the bleeding edge.

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps.

From what I can tell, the list you're citing disproves every single claim you made, rather than affirming them.

They backported their Apple Remote Desktop security update (did you think they updated 3.5.4, which runs on older machines, on the same day as 3.7 just for fun?). Same goes for the Safari update, which saw versions of the app intended for older systems getting updated (again, did you miss the whole 6.1.1 in addition to 7.0.1 update thing in your list?). The Keynote security update was related to a feature introduced in the Mavericks-only version of Keynote, so backporting wasn't necessary. Likewise for the OS X Server 3.0 update, from what I can gather (though I'll admit I may be incorrect on this point).

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update.

At this point, it's pretty clear you just decided to make stuff up about what was in the Mavericks update, since the entire security update for Mavericks consists of this one bullet point:

OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1.

I.e. The Mavericks and Safari updates are patching the exact same security issue, hence why they were released on the same day, and as I already pointed out, the Safari update that was released was intended for older systems. How you can claim to have knowledge of what the Mavericks update fixes while not knowing that it was the exact same as the Safari update is beyond me.

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps.

From what I can tell, the list you're citing disproves every single claim you made, rather than affirming them.

They backported their Apple Remote Desktop security update (did you think they updated 3.5.4, which runs on older machines, on the same day as 3.7 just for fun?). Same goes for the Safari update, which saw versions of the app intended for older systems getting updated (again, did you miss the whole 6.1.1 in addition to 7.0.1 update thing in your list?). The Keynote security update was related to a feature introduced in the Mavericks-only version of Keynote, so backporting wasn't necessary. Likewise for the OS X Server 3.0 update, from what I can gather (though I'll admit I may be incorrect on this point).

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update.

At this point, it's pretty clear you just decided to make stuff up about what was in the Mavericks update, since the entire security update for Mavericks consists of this one bullet point:

OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1.

I.e. The Mavericks and Safari updates are patching the exact same security issue, hence why they were released on the same day, and as I already pointed out, the Safari update that was released was intended for older systems. How you can claim to have knowledge of what the Mavericks update fixes while not knowing that it was the exact same as the Safari update is beyond me.

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.

Mavericks 10.9.1: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6084 "OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1."

The same update that appears for Lion and Mountain Lion on the same day (the security issues were not present in Safari 5). You are a liar.

The old Mac Pro was in need of a refresh for quite some time. Literally they stopped refreshing them which is why at the time this article was written he could build something similar for so much less money.

But spec out the new Mac Pro. They're not something you could build for $1,100 or even close to that.

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro

The website you list is actually quite funny because it seems to reveal Apple hardware is quite well priced.

In the mac mini, for instance, to save money he leaves out wifi, and uses an i3 instead of an i5.

And OK maybe you won't use wifi. But you will need a keyboard and mouse and he leaves those out of the price as well.

Or, when the 21.5" imac is listed as being very over priced he lists "Any 21.5 monitor (1920x1080)"

IAAP (I am a Photographer) and I can tell you that the Apple screens in the iMacs are very, very high quality. To get a similar screen you'll be shelling out some money.

For most of these models, you're paying more for the Apple brand and look, yes that's true. But in many cases that look is much smaller (compare the size of his custom iMacs -- they're HUGE!) and you get Apple support (can you just walk into an apple store with your hackintosh)?

Of course that's all personal preference, and maybe sexy design isn't worth an extra $100 for you.

Regarding the Mac Pro, that's been in need of a refresh for quite some time. And they're finally out!

It would be interesting to know how much a hackintoshes for those cost :

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro

I wasn't talking about what 'the tools do, under the hood' (dammit, typical windows speak), my point was that your operating system is a black box. dammit there isn't even source code available.

Darwin source code no longer exists? This link no longer works?.

the link worked for me just fine.

Nope.

You are correct that they are padded when they are loaded in memory. but on disk (at least with ELF)

You are making an incorrect assumption here. (Hint: I said "libSystem", not "libc".)

the size of segments is specified in bytes, not pages.

OK, let's look in a little more detail:

$ size -m hello
Segment __PAGEZERO: 4294967296
Segment __TEXT: 4096
Section __text: 77
Section __stubs: 12
Section __stub_helper: 36
Section __cstring: 14
Section __unwind_info: 80
Section __eh_frame: 72
total 291
Segment __DATA: 4096
Section __program_vars: 40
Section __nl_symbol_ptr: 16
Section __la_symbol_ptr: 16
Section __common: 32
total 104
Segment __LINKEDIT: 4096
total 4294979584

The Mach-O specification says:

For best performance, segments should be aligned on virtual memory page boundaries—4096 bytes for PowerPC and x86 processors. To calculate the size of a segment, add up the size of each section, then round up the sum to the next virtual memory page boundary (4096 bytes, or 4 kilobytes). Using this algorithm, the minimum size of a segment is 4 kilobytes, and thereafter it is sized at 4 kilobyte increments.

And that's not necessarily space in the file:

Segments that require more memory at runtime than they do at build time can specify a larger in-memory size than they actually have on disk. For example, the __PAGEZERO segment generated by the linker for PowerPC executable files has a virtual memory size of one page but an on-disk size of 0. Because __PAGEZERO contains no data, there is no need for it to occupy any space in the executable file.

although if a segment is being paged in from the file, it'll be padded on disk so that you don't get extra cruft from the following segment when you fault in the last page of the segment.

It's been ages since I dealt with ELF (back in 1988), but I suspect that the same is done there. This version of the ELF specification seems to suggest that it is.

I.e., they may be specified in units of bytes, but they might also be padded to a number of bytes that's a multiple of the page size.

The entry point of an elf executable is not main(), it is a function called _start()

That dates back well before ELF, all the way to PDP-11 UNIX's a.out format.

which is provided by gcc or glibc (I can't recall)

On Solaris with Sun C^W^WOracle Studio, it's provided neither by GCC nor by glibc; on *BSD, it's definitely not provided by glibc, and if clang is used, it's obviously not provided by GCC.

While on the surface I agree with you, sadly there is a game called cookie clicker in which all you do is click and not on anything in particular. You can check out the original javascript game here if you aren't partial to iOS.