You mean I can write wor...I mean software that will automatically find the most available hosts to infe...I mean utilize?
You mean, exactly the way the SQLSlammer worm did? It just hit _every_ IP address it could think of. Lack of a discovery protocol didn't slow it down a bit.
And network resources are instantly available to me with little or no authentication?
Authentication is the responsibility of the application layer. Rendezvous only makes it easier to find services. It's still up to the service to restrict access appropriately.
I use free software both because it meet my needs and as my personal "fuck off" to the Microsofts and Apples of the world.
Reality Check:
Some programmers (like me) have spent years working on products like Mac OS X so that you can use a computer as a tool. See, we believe that the machine should help you get something done, and get the heck out of the way otherwise.
For some people, that means having txtfiles config everything, because their brains are capable of modeling the operation of the whole machine in their head.
For others (like me) I'd rather see the computer go off and do the stuff I can't, and simplify the user interaction so that the user can keep their problem in their head.
What the original poster was saying is that too many geeks forget that "how the computer works" is the problem they use computers to solve, and most other users have totally different problems, and wish us geeks would stop imposing our problemset on them.
So if you want to tell MS and Apple to fuck off, don't do it because they serve an "ideology" different from yours. GUI/CLI design is not a zero-sum game.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I brought out a product 'Hobbit OS X' (pronounced 'Oss Ecks'), I wouldn't get a call from Apple's lawyers?
I won't speak for what Apple's lawyers will or won't actually do, but as long as your hypothetical product isn't a software product, they shouldn't care.
Even if it is a software product, as long as "Hobbit OS X" isn't deceptively similar to a Macintosh Operating System, you shouldn't have any problems.
If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly' they'll have to start writing it Mac OS X.2.3.
Apple doesn't care how you pronounce it. Apple named it the way they did so that they could have a trademark on the name "Mac OS X", use that as the name of the "product" where applicable, and append version numbers as needed to indicate changes.
Only the USPTO cares about these sorts of details. But they can be incredibly important if you want to keep competitors from using your product name in an unfair way (by selling something different under a deceptively similar name, for example.)
Sadly, Dubya has proven once and for all that the more blatent your self-interest is, the more people will praise you for your strong convictions. Do your looting in the daylight!
Whatever happened to social responsibility? Way too many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit, regardless of any other concerns (including even it's own long-term concerns).
It is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit. Social responsibility lives in the wallet of the consumer, not in the offerings of the market. The owners of that corporation have a social responsibility to spend their money wisely, not make it.
There's no need for the supply side to preach a consistant morality. The supply side should offer any morality one can imagine. That's freedom.
Ethics created through lack of choices are not ethics, they're actions of ignorance. Real morals are made apparant by one's choices.
Teach those around you not to buy from companies you find immoral. But don't expect everyone to agree with your definition of right and wrong, and don't try to force it upon the rest of us by shutting down the supply side of that immorality just because the consuming side ignores you.
As for murder, it's illegal. Corporations should strive for maximum profits within the law. Laws should be written to prohibit people from harming each other, and penalize those who profit from that harm.
Yes, but when 10.3 appears all this software will get some mysterious 'incompatibility' with the new OS. Guess what fixes that?
The fact that those iApps probably will ship with 10.3, if 10.3 is a pay-for upgrade?
Apple doesn't intentionally break software with new OS versions.
And if those iApps do break in 10.3, and do not ship as new versions in 10.3, perhaps your friends will choose not to upgrade to 10.3.
Or maybe 10.3 will be so amazing they they will want to pay for both 10.3, and the updated iApps. They do pay for software they find useful, right?
No one is forcing people to upgrade. More likely, you're a power user who never considered the idea that you don't have to be running the latest and greatest software of the given moment, and it's psychologically traumatizing to consider the possibility of not upgrading.
If the software is EOL'd every 6 months the hardware becomes useless.
What, your machine just turns into a lump of inert plastic? What ever happened to buying a piece of technology that does what you want and using it until what you want something better?
There are millions of Mac users with ancient machines running exactly the same software they set them up with years ago. The machine worked fine for them then, and works the same way now.
There's no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to "upgrade".
More likely, what's happening is that you want to upgrade, because the new software or hardware does something your old system doesn't. Guess what, time to pay for something new. It's not a $1500 lifetime membership to everything Apple will ever invent.
IMHO, software companies created this brain damaged thought process when they beat it into people's heads that it was a license instead of a purchase. Maybe if they started making it clear that we're buying a physical product, people wouldn't feel such entitlement to every future iteration. Honda doesn't send you the latest model every year for any less than the full price, why should Apple?
"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary. You'll see, it'll happen to you."
The challenge is finding the right materials and making it mass producable.
And then what? Are these atomic batteries safe for the landfill? Are they at least safer than the Pb, NiCad, LiIon, and NiMH batteries that consumers are supposed to recycle practically anywhere batteries are sold, but never do?
All we have to do is drop off these batteries at a local RadioShack, but what percentage of consumers actually do this?
How does the danger of atomic batteries in the local landfill compare to these other heavy metal toxins?
It's the video chip. I have a 700MHz white iBook that I used before and after 10.2 came out.
Without Quartz Extreme, OS X uses about 60% of the G3 when you do live alpha blending, like dragging a window around (the window shadow has alpha).
With Quartz Extreme, the CPU does almost nothing.
This makes a HUGE difference in the perception of speed. There's plenty else in 10.2 that makes it faster than 10.1, but the speed delta is most noticable on a G3 that can run Quartz Extreme.
On the G4s, QE is still a big deal, but not as big a deal, since 10.1's Quartz uses plenty of Altivec.
Is it possible to install any other manufacturer's cards internally within the iBook?
No. Don't try, or you will fry something.
The Apple AirPort card is a Lucent PCMCIA card, but with a different voltage feed, and pins swapped around.
It's not impossible to get a Lucent card to work in the AirPort slot, but it requires hacking up the inside of the card. It's not worth it. It's not possible at all to get other cards to work in the slot.
Just buy the Apple card. Think of the $50 extra it will cost you as the cost of having great antennas built into the screen. I'm typing this on a white iBook over AirPort, and I get amazing range.
They suggest you change IOAGPDevice to IOPCIDevice. But to make it work on both just remove it, like: <key>GLCompositorRequiredClasses</key> <array> </array>
Do you see the word "array" there? What part of "array" don't people understand?
I just think it'd be a bit silly to implement something as complex as a TCP stack in a mouse.
What do you think of the complexity of USB? I think USB is even more complex than TCP/IP.
Do we really want every user to configure a firewall to block all the mouse traffic from reaching the internet?
You wouldn't need to. The mouse and the port it was connected to would both allocate themselves link-local IP addresses, which are not routable on the Internet.
You really should read up about Zeroconf before dismissing it as too complicated or lacking in security. It is neither.
Because ethernet isnt deterministic (due to collisions...
Full duplex ethernet doesn't need CSMA/CD.
Lastly, ethernet is big relatively. USB chips cost less than a buck each
"Big relatively"? Nope, they cost the same. Some hardware vendors (that design their own chips), even combine all of the logic for FireWire, USB, Ethernet, & ATA, all onto the same one chip.
What would be the advantage of using Ethernet to connect your keyboard to your computer? The ``only one plug'' idea is nice, but wouldn't there be a significant cost associated with putting a NIC and a TCP stack in every computer keyboard?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: There would probably be a cost savings, from using a standard connector, and only needing one codebase to maintain and debug. The complexity of TCP/IP is arguably less than that of USB!
I had the impression that we were just talking about computer-to-computer communication here, not computer-to-peripheral.
We are, but what's the difference? Your mouse contains a general purpose computer just as powerful as the computer you owned 10 years ago. For about $1. There's nothing to be gained in cost, complexity, or otherwise, from trying to simplify the design of peripherals just to satisfy some desire that they be subserviant to the host machine.
With Zeroconf, TCP/IP applications can discover each other over local links without network configuration.
So you could have a row of ethernet ports on the back of your machine, and when you attached a keyboard to one of them, the keyboard and _that_ ethernet port would both assign themselves a link-local address, and the keyboard would run a DNS server that advertised that it was a keyboard available at whatever IP address it had selected for itself.
The key is that link-local addresses are NOT routable accross the internet, and can be claimed by the device without a central arbiter.
This is pretty close to how USB already works, except it uses TCP/IP addresses and packets instead of USB ones.
You pretty much summarized it, excpet the part where you proclaim that a whole different networking stack should be created to "make it impossible from it to escape from the LAN."
If you think this is obnoxious, and as a RoadRunner customer, you want to complain in the loudest possible fashion, call them.
Call their tech support number. Tie up their customer service people for as long as you can stand to be on the phone.
They don't care if you post in their forums. Bits. Easily ignored, nearly free.
When you call their 800 number, you are costing them money. They keep track of how many calls they get to tech support. They keep track of them by issue, and how much that issue is costing them. Customer support is where most companies see their profit margin evaporate, and consequently it's the one interaction with the customer that they watch closely to make sure they make the customer happy, because support costs money.
They don't care about your silly "rights". If 30% of their customers called to complain about their underfed cats, they'd probably send everyone cat food with the next bill. They don't listen, but they do react.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean I can write wor...I mean software that will automatically find the most available hosts to infe...I mean utilize?
You mean, exactly the way the SQLSlammer worm did? It just hit _every_ IP address it could think of. Lack of a discovery protocol didn't slow it down a bit.
And network resources are instantly available to me with little or no authentication?
Authentication is the responsibility of the application layer. Rendezvous only makes it easier to find services. It's still up to the service to restrict access appropriately.
I use free software both because it meet my needs and as my personal "fuck off" to the Microsofts and Apples of the world.
Reality Check:
Some programmers (like me) have spent years working on products like Mac OS X so that you can use a computer as a tool. See, we believe that the machine should help you get something done, and get the heck out of the way otherwise.
For some people, that means having txtfiles config everything, because their brains are capable of modeling the operation of the whole machine in their head.
For others (like me) I'd rather see the computer go off and do the stuff I can't, and simplify the user interaction so that the user can keep their problem in their head.
What the original poster was saying is that too many geeks forget that "how the computer works" is the problem they use computers to solve, and most other users have totally different problems, and wish us geeks would stop imposing our problemset on them.
So if you want to tell MS and Apple to fuck off, don't do it because they serve an "ideology" different from yours. GUI/CLI design is not a zero-sum game.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I brought out a product 'Hobbit OS X' (pronounced 'Oss Ecks'), I wouldn't get a call from Apple's lawyers?
I won't speak for what Apple's lawyers will or won't actually do, but as long as your hypothetical product isn't a software product, they shouldn't care.
Even if it is a software product, as long as "Hobbit OS X" isn't deceptively similar to a Macintosh Operating System, you shouldn't have any problems.
IANAL, YMMV, HAND.
If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly' they'll have to start writing it Mac OS X.2.3.
Apple doesn't care how you pronounce it. Apple named it the way they did so that they could have a trademark on the name "Mac OS X", use that as the name of the "product" where applicable, and append version numbers as needed to indicate changes.
Only the USPTO cares about these sorts of details. But they can be incredibly important if you want to keep competitors from using your product name in an unfair way (by selling something different under a deceptively similar name, for example.)
Is it right to elect the CEO of a major corporation as president?
How about electing the ex-CEO of a major corporation as Vice-President, and then putting him in charge of negotiating the future of that industry?
Sadly, Dubya has proven once and for all that the more blatent your self-interest is, the more people will praise you for your strong convictions. Do your looting in the daylight!
-pmb
Whatever happened to social responsibility? Way too many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit, regardless of any other concerns (including even it's own long-term concerns).
It is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit. Social responsibility lives in the wallet of the consumer, not in the offerings of the market. The owners of that corporation have a social responsibility to spend their money wisely, not make it.
There's no need for the supply side to preach a consistant morality. The supply side should offer any morality one can imagine. That's freedom.
Ethics created through lack of choices are not ethics, they're actions of ignorance. Real morals are made apparant by one's choices.
Teach those around you not to buy from companies you find immoral. But don't expect everyone to agree with your definition of right and wrong, and don't try to force it upon the rest of us by shutting down the supply side of that immorality just because the consuming side ignores you.
As for murder, it's illegal. Corporations should strive for maximum profits within the law. Laws should be written to prohibit people from harming each other, and penalize those who profit from that harm.
-pmb
Yes, but when 10.3 appears all this software will get some mysterious 'incompatibility' with the new OS. Guess what fixes that?
The fact that those iApps probably will ship with 10.3, if 10.3 is a pay-for upgrade?
Apple doesn't intentionally break software with new OS versions.
And if those iApps do break in 10.3, and do not ship as new versions in 10.3, perhaps your friends will choose not to upgrade to 10.3.
Or maybe 10.3 will be so amazing they they will want to pay for both 10.3, and the updated iApps. They do pay for software they find useful, right?
No one is forcing people to upgrade. More likely, you're a power user who never considered the idea that you don't have to be running the latest and greatest software of the given moment, and it's psychologically traumatizing to consider the possibility of not upgrading.
-pmb
If the software is EOL'd every 6 months the hardware becomes useless.
What, your machine just turns into a lump of inert plastic? What ever happened to buying a piece of technology that does what you want and using it until what you want something better?
There are millions of Mac users with ancient machines running exactly the same software they set them up with years ago. The machine worked fine for them then, and works the same way now.
There's no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to "upgrade".
More likely, what's happening is that you want to upgrade, because the new software or hardware does something your old system doesn't. Guess what, time to pay for something new. It's not a $1500 lifetime membership to everything Apple will ever invent.
IMHO, software companies created this brain damaged thought process when they beat it into people's heads that it was a license instead of a purchase. Maybe if they started making it clear that we're buying a physical product, people wouldn't feel such entitlement to every future iteration. Honda doesn't send you the latest model every year for any less than the full price, why should Apple?
-pmb
"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary. You'll see, it'll happen to you."
-- Grandpa Simpson
Cartman: Tell them we'll have punch and pie.
Kyle: We're not gonna' have punch and pie!
Cartman: More people will come if they think we have punch and pie!!
It's by far the best meta-slashdot comment I've ever read:
i d=4592270
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=44091&c
The challenge is finding the right materials and making it mass producable.
And then what? Are these atomic batteries safe for the landfill? Are they at least safer than the Pb, NiCad, LiIon, and NiMH batteries that consumers are supposed to recycle practically anywhere batteries are sold, but never do?
All we have to do is drop off these batteries at a local RadioShack, but what percentage of consumers actually do this?
How does the danger of atomic batteries in the local landfill compare to these other heavy metal toxins?
I have a 500MHz G3 iBook
It's the video chip. I have a 700MHz white iBook that I used before and after 10.2 came out.
Without Quartz Extreme, OS X uses about 60% of the G3 when you do live alpha blending, like dragging a window around (the window shadow has alpha).
With Quartz Extreme, the CPU does almost nothing.
This makes a HUGE difference in the perception of speed. There's plenty else in 10.2 that makes it faster than 10.1, but the speed delta is most noticable on a G3 that can run Quartz Extreme.
On the G4s, QE is still a big deal, but not as big a deal, since 10.1's Quartz uses plenty of Altivec.
-pmb
15k rpm scsi drives get seek times in the low three range--that's three times faster than your average 5400 rpm ide hdd.
Mostly because they're spinning three times faster. It has nothing to do with IDE or SCSI.
-pmb
Is it possible to install any other manufacturer's cards internally within the iBook?
No. Don't try, or you will fry something.
The Apple AirPort card is a Lucent PCMCIA card, but with a different voltage feed, and pins swapped around.
It's not impossible to get a Lucent card to work in the AirPort slot, but it requires hacking up the inside of the card. It's not worth it. It's not possible at all to get other cards to work in the slot.
Just buy the Apple card. Think of the $50 extra it will cost you as the cost of having great antennas built into the screen. I'm typing this on a white iBook over AirPort, and I get amazing range.
-pmb
Sure, when you crash your car into their's while checking your email as you pull into the parking lot.
-pmb
They suggest you change IOAGPDevice to IOPCIDevice. But to make it work on both just remove it, like:
<key>GLCompositorRequiredClasses</key>
<array>
</array>
Do you see the word "array" there? What part of "array" don't people understand?
<array>
<string>IOAGPDevice</string>
<string>IOPCIDevice</string>
</array>
I mean, how obvious does it have to be? It's not like there aren't 5000 other *.plist files on the system to crib from.
-pmb
Today, top company exectutives seem to be above the law.
The HP VP droid who did this is not acting above the law. He is using the law exactly as intended!
We need to get the law removed, not convince a bunch of corporations that they shouldn't use it!
-pmb
I just think it'd be a bit silly to implement something as complex as a TCP stack in a mouse.
What do you think of the complexity of USB? I think USB is even more complex than TCP/IP.
Do we really want every user to configure a firewall to block all the mouse traffic from reaching the internet?
You wouldn't need to. The mouse and the port it was connected to would both allocate themselves link-local IP addresses, which are not routable on the Internet.
You really should read up about Zeroconf before dismissing it as too complicated or lacking in security. It is neither.
-pmb
Because ethernet isnt deterministic (due to collisions...
Full duplex ethernet doesn't need CSMA/CD.
Lastly, ethernet is big relatively. USB chips cost less than a buck each
"Big relatively"? Nope, they cost the same. Some hardware vendors (that design their own chips), even combine all of the logic for FireWire, USB, Ethernet, & ATA, all onto the same one chip.
-pmb
What would be the advantage of using Ethernet to connect your keyboard to your computer? The ``only one plug'' idea is nice, but wouldn't there be a significant cost associated with putting a NIC and a TCP stack in every computer keyboard?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: There would probably be a cost savings, from using a standard connector, and only needing one codebase to maintain and debug. The complexity of TCP/IP is arguably less than that of USB!
I had the impression that we were just talking about computer-to-computer communication here, not computer-to-peripheral.
We are, but what's the difference? Your mouse contains a general purpose computer just as powerful as the computer you owned 10 years ago. For about $1. There's nothing to be gained in cost, complexity, or otherwise, from trying to simplify the design of peripherals just to satisfy some desire that they be subserviant to the host machine.
-pmb
The "single protocol" is TCP/IP.
With Zeroconf, TCP/IP applications can discover each other over local links without network configuration.
So you could have a row of ethernet ports on the back of your machine, and when you attached a keyboard to one of them, the keyboard and _that_ ethernet port would both assign themselves a link-local address, and the keyboard would run a DNS server that advertised that it was a keyboard available at whatever IP address it had selected for itself.
The key is that link-local addresses are NOT routable accross the internet, and can be claimed by the device without a central arbiter.
This is pretty close to how USB already works, except it uses TCP/IP addresses and packets instead of USB ones.
-pmb
You pretty much summarized it, excpet the part where you proclaim that a whole different networking stack should be created to "make it impossible from it to escape from the LAN."
Mmmmkay.
-pmb
The "Single Protocol" Stuart is talking about is TCP/IP, not some newfangled daydream.
-pmb
If you think this is obnoxious, and as a RoadRunner customer, you want to complain in the loudest possible fashion, call them.
:-)
Call their tech support number. Tie up their customer service people for as long as you can stand to be on the phone.
They don't care if you post in their forums. Bits. Easily ignored, nearly free.
When you call their 800 number, you are costing them money. They keep track of how many calls they get to tech support. They keep track of them by issue, and how much that issue is costing them. Customer support is where most companies see their profit margin evaporate, and consequently it's the one interaction with the customer that they watch closely to make sure they make the customer happy, because support costs money.
They don't care about your silly "rights". If 30% of their customers called to complain about their underfed cats, they'd probably send everyone cat food with the next bill. They don't listen, but they do react.
Make them pay.
-pmb