To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.
From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.
I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?
This is absurd. Apple will not stop making Mac OS X until they stop making Macs. Are you trying to say they are going to stop selling Macs any time soon? That's absolutely absurd. As is the claim that a new and improved version of Mac OS X is a push towards killing Mac OS X. They are in the process of upgrading all their Macs to Sandy Bridge CPUs and their newly rolled out Thunderbolt bus.
They are not going to kill the Mac any time this decade, and neither are they going to kill Mac OS X. They would never do something like that while so many people want them.
Sometimes I wonder how nerds can be so smart and so stupid at the exact same time.
Macs already are in the enterprise, just not on the server side of things. I don't see how a locked-down system will make them more compelling servers.
But in no way would Apple make Macs less compelling to the consumer market simply to target the enterprise.
Nerds like to say this "ooh, I'm afraid Apple will do just this!", but they give NO REASONING WHY Apple would do this other than "I see that's how they are going".
They will never, EVER, make it difficult to install your own software on Mac OS X. This is because MACS AREN'T IPHONES. Something slashdotters have a hard time understanding. Apple's reasoning for locking down iOS make sense for handheld devices. Those very same reasons do not apply to Macs. There is no "the way Apple is headed".
When you say they will lock it down "in the next couple of years", you are saying it will be 10.8 that is locked down. So, you expect Apple to be able to force Adobe and Microsoft and the hundreds of custom and niche ISVs to go through the Mac App Store? And force users to buy all new apps? This quite simply will not, and can not, happen. It makes no technological sense.
Nor will Apple make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. You are thinking of the other guys. Apple shies away from artificial product distinctions. Mac OS X Lion, for example, will do away with the distinction between a Server and non-server product. Making a "Mac OS X Pro Edition" would be exceptionally non-Apple like. So much so that it's pretty much impossible.
This wasn't my contention, it was the so-called "tech writer's". His claim was, in part, that Android would sap away viruses from Mac OS X, because Android outnumbers the Mac. This conveniently ignores the fact that iOS *vastly* outnumbers Android. Yet somehow Android malware vastly outnumbers iOS malware...
In a strange way it does bolster his argument, but not in a way that flatters Android.
Because somehow a replaced iPod vanishes? Also, it's the exact same way Android devices are tallied. Well, not quite. Android tallies are not directly counted, like iOS device sales, but are estimated from various metrics. Even so, they don't consider those replaced either.
Either way, iOS devices vastly outnumber Android, which is my point. The idea that Android, which outnumbers the Mac, will be a lightning rod because of this, is pure fandroid fantasy. iOS outsells and outnumbers Android.
Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.
Which "facts" would this be? The fact that iOS outnumbers Android? The fact that even just iPhones outnumber Android? It would seem you are rather confused.
Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place. Apple will not cripple Mac OS X. The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood. Mac OS X and iOS are not the same OS. What's good for one OS is not necessarily good for the other. That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
The funny thing is, iOS outnumbers Android by well over 2:1. There are over 200 million iOS devices out there now, over 100 million of which are iPhones alone. Android might be a lightning rod for malware, but it's not because of its numbers.
Aerospace uses it for control, because you can be sure the wing or whatever is going to get the command in time. That's not "A/V".
As for not calling music, video, and photography "significant", um... that's pretty much the entire creative industry. It's *HUGE* in the professional creative world. It's not huge in the consumer world, but it doesn't have to be.
You're asking for broad adoption, and this is never going to happen, but it's not necessary. USB is "good enough". I don't see why this has to be a "win or lose" scenario. USB is no threat to FireWire's existence. 100 years from now, if the only external buses were FireWire and USB (and they kept their general overall design, just getting faster), FireWire would still be around.
No shit, the context was making changes on the fly. If you edit the conf file, then you are "reloading the whole firewall", which is what the OP was arguing about.
How they are saved depends on the distro. If you use something like Fedora before this, then whether using a gui or command line, you are effectively editing a file and then reload that file by restarting a sudo service. If you use something like gentoo, then it saves your firewall on shutdown or at your request.
Irrelevant to the context of this thread. But if you want, this is what "reloading the whole firewall" refers to.
The DBUS stuff to have apps make requests is potentially very cool, I really hope it's well thought out though...
Or you just fix the fucking firewall so you don't have to create a "bloody tinkertoy". Seriously, iptables is ok for a server or a nerd desktop machine, but even a "bloody tinkertoy" is too complex. The mere notion of a "restart firewall" icon is unnecessary, and completely indefensible compared to simply fixing the firewall system in the first place.
Why should someone even have to know such commands in the first place?
How about an automotive analogy? If you can't parallel park, you can't claim to know how to drive.
Sure you can.
If you can't change a flat tire, you shouldn't be licensed to drive.
Says who? But sure, let's follow this automotive analogy. If you don't make it so that you can drive a car without being able to change a flat, then you have no business complaining when someone who does gets all the business.
Just because you can have your car - or your computer - do things for you automagically shouldn't relieve you of the responsibility to UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM!!
That's, quite simply, nothing more than elitist nerd bullshit.
I haven't had to use iptables for quite some time now, but I think they are referring to making permanent changes. Sure, you can type in a new rule and it will take it, but it won't reload after a reboot.
Aside from testing/tweaking to find the right settings, it seems a bit dangerous to modify the firewall on the fly anyway, because months later when you reboot, you might be stuck wondering why your VPN (etc.) isn't working. And by stuck wondering, I mean you'll get a call from someone who can't access the VPN (or whatever), after you rebooted the computer, and you'll end up having to figure out why, and then redo all the work you did months ago to get it working in the first place.
Also, you can have programs interact with the firewall directly, opening and closing ports as needed. The Slashdot summary is just a snippet, and doesn't do a very good job of communicating the contents of the actual article.
If you ever want the masses to take up Linux, then yes, this is exactly the sort of thing you have to fix. Why should someone even have to know such commands in the first place?
And I don't understand your reasoning anyway. Just because something isn't terribly difficult (once you know what to type), that doesn't mean it's not good to make things even easier. But somehow, whenever anyone tries (GNOME, Ubuntu), they get pilloried.
No, significantly more than just disks. It's just that disks are the most common consumer application.
Almost everything professional uses, or can use, FireWire, from music to video to spacecraft. This is primarily due to the fact that FireWire is much more reliable in terms of latency than other external buses.
There are many excellent reasons to dislike every one of your examples independent of their successes.
Only to nerds. For regular people, there are plenty of excellent reasons to like every one of those examples. This is why Slashdot is such a poor predictor of market success.
Also, it's a proper (read: consumer friendly) external connector and bus, unlike the nerd-loved eSATA, which is absolutely awful as both an external connector and external bus.
Intel worked on light peak, then partnered with Apple to make it into Thunderbolt, which Apple then began to put into all of their computers, starting with the MacBook Pros. A non-trivial difference.
Well put. Religious, or the somehow self-proclaimed "disinterested" seem all too eager to tell atheists what they believe or what they should label themselves as.
"Eighth-grader logic" is thinking that having an idea about how you'd do something, and actually doing something, is the same thing. For all the inevitable posts on Slashdot by people who seem to think they are so capable, you'd think these super-geniuses would be out there making all sorts of amazing things. When the actual truth is that it's far easier to *CLAIM* you can do something better than it is to *ACTUALLY* do something better.
Slashdot Mirror
To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.
From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.
I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?
This is absurd. Apple will not stop making Mac OS X until they stop making Macs. Are you trying to say they are going to stop selling Macs any time soon? That's absolutely absurd. As is the claim that a new and improved version of Mac OS X is a push towards killing Mac OS X. They are in the process of upgrading all their Macs to Sandy Bridge CPUs and their newly rolled out Thunderbolt bus.
They are not going to kill the Mac any time this decade, and neither are they going to kill Mac OS X. They would never do something like that while so many people want them.
Sometimes I wonder how nerds can be so smart and so stupid at the exact same time.
Macs already are in the enterprise, just not on the server side of things. I don't see how a locked-down system will make them more compelling servers.
But in no way would Apple make Macs less compelling to the consumer market simply to target the enterprise.
Nerds like to say this "ooh, I'm afraid Apple will do just this!", but they give NO REASONING WHY Apple would do this other than "I see that's how they are going".
They will never, EVER, make it difficult to install your own software on Mac OS X. This is because MACS AREN'T IPHONES. Something slashdotters have a hard time understanding. Apple's reasoning for locking down iOS make sense for handheld devices. Those very same reasons do not apply to Macs. There is no "the way Apple is headed".
When you say they will lock it down "in the next couple of years", you are saying it will be 10.8 that is locked down. So, you expect Apple to be able to force Adobe and Microsoft and the hundreds of custom and niche ISVs to go through the Mac App Store? And force users to buy all new apps? This quite simply will not, and can not, happen. It makes no technological sense.
Nor will Apple make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. You are thinking of the other guys. Apple shies away from artificial product distinctions. Mac OS X Lion, for example, will do away with the distinction between a Server and non-server product. Making a "Mac OS X Pro Edition" would be exceptionally non-Apple like. So much so that it's pretty much impossible.
This wasn't my contention, it was the so-called "tech writer's". His claim was, in part, that Android would sap away viruses from Mac OS X, because Android outnumbers the Mac. This conveniently ignores the fact that iOS *vastly* outnumbers Android. Yet somehow Android malware vastly outnumbers iOS malware...
In a strange way it does bolster his argument, but not in a way that flatters Android.
Apple sold it's 160 millionth iOS device in January, and sells around 10 million per month. Apple sold their 100 millionth iPhone in February/March.
These numbers come from Apple press releases and quarterly financial reports, all easily found via Google.
Because somehow a replaced iPod vanishes? Also, it's the exact same way Android devices are tallied. Well, not quite. Android tallies are not directly counted, like iOS device sales, but are estimated from various metrics. Even so, they don't consider those replaced either.
Either way, iOS devices vastly outnumber Android, which is my point. The idea that Android, which outnumbers the Mac, will be a lightning rod because of this, is pure fandroid fantasy. iOS outsells and outnumbers Android.
Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.
Which "facts" would this be? The fact that iOS outnumbers Android? The fact that even just iPhones outnumber Android? It would seem you are rather confused.
Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place. Apple will not cripple Mac OS X. The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood. Mac OS X and iOS are not the same OS. What's good for one OS is not necessarily good for the other. That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
The funny thing is, iOS outnumbers Android by well over 2:1. There are over 200 million iOS devices out there now, over 100 million of which are iPhones alone. Android might be a lightning rod for malware, but it's not because of its numbers.
Aerospace uses it for control, because you can be sure the wing or whatever is going to get the command in time. That's not "A/V".
As for not calling music, video, and photography "significant", um... that's pretty much the entire creative industry. It's *HUGE* in the professional creative world. It's not huge in the consumer world, but it doesn't have to be.
You're asking for broad adoption, and this is never going to happen, but it's not necessary. USB is "good enough". I don't see why this has to be a "win or lose" scenario. USB is no threat to FireWire's existence. 100 years from now, if the only external buses were FireWire and USB (and they kept their general overall design, just getting faster), FireWire would still be around.
No shit, the context was making changes on the fly. If you edit the conf file, then you are "reloading the whole firewall", which is what the OP was arguing about.
How they are saved depends on the distro. If you use something like Fedora before this, then whether using a gui or command line, you are effectively editing a file and then reload that file by restarting a sudo service. If you use something like gentoo, then it saves your firewall on shutdown or at your request.
Irrelevant to the context of this thread. But if you want, this is what "reloading the whole firewall" refers to.
The DBUS stuff to have apps make requests is potentially very cool, I really hope it's well thought out though...
Exactly.
Or you just fix the fucking firewall so you don't have to create a "bloody tinkertoy". Seriously, iptables is ok for a server or a nerd desktop machine, but even a "bloody tinkertoy" is too complex. The mere notion of a "restart firewall" icon is unnecessary, and completely indefensible compared to simply fixing the firewall system in the first place.
Why should someone even have to know such commands in the first place?
How about an automotive analogy? If you can't parallel park, you can't claim to know how to drive.
Sure you can.
If you can't change a flat tire, you shouldn't be licensed to drive.
Says who? But sure, let's follow this automotive analogy. If you don't make it so that you can drive a car without being able to change a flat, then you have no business complaining when someone who does gets all the business.
Just because you can have your car - or your computer - do things for you automagically shouldn't relieve you of the responsibility to UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM!!
That's, quite simply, nothing more than elitist nerd bullshit.
I haven't had to use iptables for quite some time now, but I think they are referring to making permanent changes. Sure, you can type in a new rule and it will take it, but it won't reload after a reboot.
Aside from testing/tweaking to find the right settings, it seems a bit dangerous to modify the firewall on the fly anyway, because months later when you reboot, you might be stuck wondering why your VPN (etc.) isn't working. And by stuck wondering, I mean you'll get a call from someone who can't access the VPN (or whatever), after you rebooted the computer, and you'll end up having to figure out why, and then redo all the work you did months ago to get it working in the first place.
Also, you can have programs interact with the firewall directly, opening and closing ports as needed. The Slashdot summary is just a snippet, and doesn't do a very good job of communicating the contents of the actual article.
If you ever want the masses to take up Linux, then yes, this is exactly the sort of thing you have to fix. Why should someone even have to know such commands in the first place?
And I don't understand your reasoning anyway. Just because something isn't terribly difficult (once you know what to type), that doesn't mean it's not good to make things even easier. But somehow, whenever anyone tries (GNOME, Ubuntu), they get pilloried.
No, significantly more than just disks. It's just that disks are the most common consumer application.
Almost everything professional uses, or can use, FireWire, from music to video to spacecraft. This is primarily due to the fact that FireWire is much more reliable in terms of latency than other external buses.
Parent was talking about disks, not other devices. eSATA is the correct choice for an external disk.
And so was I. eSATA is by no means "the correct choice for an external disk". It can be. FireWire, and even USB, are also "correct" choices.
There are many excellent reasons to dislike every one of your examples independent of their successes.
Only to nerds. For regular people, there are plenty of excellent reasons to like every one of those examples. This is why Slashdot is such a poor predictor of market success.
Also, it's a proper (read: consumer friendly) external connector and bus, unlike the nerd-loved eSATA, which is absolutely awful as both an external connector and external bus.
Intel worked on light peak, then partnered with Apple to make it into Thunderbolt, which Apple then began to put into all of their computers, starting with the MacBook Pros. A non-trivial difference.
Apple hasn't abandoned FireWire. And they won't abandon Thunderbolt, because it's also their display connector.
Acting like there's a "correct answer" is nerd hubris. Answers are rarely based on one simple metric.
eSATA has power, plug and play, and daisy chaining limitations/issues that FireWire doesn't. Also, FireWire is useful for much more than just disks.
Well put. Religious, or the somehow self-proclaimed "disinterested" seem all too eager to tell atheists what they believe or what they should label themselves as.
"Eighth-grader logic" is thinking that having an idea about how you'd do something, and actually doing something, is the same thing. For all the inevitable posts on Slashdot by people who seem to think they are so capable, you'd think these super-geniuses would be out there making all sorts of amazing things. When the actual truth is that it's far easier to *CLAIM* you can do something better than it is to *ACTUALLY* do something better.