Someone saying their own choice was sophisticated is NOT the same as saying someone else's choice isn't. It is not an obligatory insult. You are employing false logic.
Saying Mac users are "fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need" is absolutely insulting. If you are going to respond to someone who you believe is calling you (or someone) unsophisticated, at least try to have a sophisticated response.
Every Mac that includes a mouse includes a two-button mouse (functionally) that is configured by default to act as a one-button mouse. That has been true now for quite some time.
Just change the mouse preference to have it recognize both the right and left button.
Since webkit and the new JS engine are open source (and have been) Linux enthusiasts can create a webkit based browser for themselves. I thought that was much of the point of FOSS. Make the code open and we will built it ourselves. Now you want Apple to do it for you?
I believe the point of contention from the investors is: The money being used for R&D is their (the investor's) money, and that compared to a number of other companies MS is getting much less bang for their R&D buck. Thus the feeling that MS is not spending the investors money on R&D wisely.
Here's the beginning of an idea for you: if you were to implement the ultimate Google Apps PC, which relies on a web browser for word editing, presentations, etc. Would it look like IE and a start menu, or could you make it really seamless?
I believe this is precisely the goal that Google's Chrome is meant to address.
Well, of course it's only my opinion! This is/., after all -- I can almost guarantee I'm completely wrong!:)
That said, a non-jailbroken iPhone is pretty useless as I understand it, without the ability to multitask 3rd party apps and having only one outlet to distribute software. What's working for Apple right now is the shiny trendy iPhone buzz... but if that's going to continue onto something more solid, I'd think they'll need to open up the platform a bit more so that 3rd party apps can be useful.
Just my $0.02:)
Come on now mods. While I do not agree with everything this posts says it is most clearly NOT a troll, but an honestly stated opinion. This is supposed to be an interactive discussion. What's more, this poster was polite, humorous, and self-effacing... NOT a troll.
Everyone's jailbreaking their phones in order to get semi-decent functionality.
I am not sure this is true. You would need to produce some numbers to support that statement. It might have been true before the App store, but everyone I know who used to have their iPhone's jailbroken (before the App store) no longer does. The applications supplied by the App store meet their needs adequately. (I realize other's do jailbreak and if I had a compelling need I would not hesitate.)
This strategy isn't going to work for Apple
Respectfully, this is your opinion and is, so far, not born out by current events.
RIght now, Apple's model is working. Nokia's is worried about Symbian's future and open-sourcing it is a reaction to that. Apple does not need to react.
There is room for more than one model for how to develop a product. The iPhone is targeted to consumers who want a very well thought out, consistent, easily usable (and therefore more useful) device. Not all of us WANT the iPhone that would result from open source. There are projects like Android to appeal to those consumers.
I thought that Windows had a sort of dodgy design where it divided RAM essentially in two, so for 4 Gigs it divides into 2 Gigs for System (driver) use and 2 Gigs for general use which generally makes Windows use real memory less efficiently than other modern OSes.
Didn't they ALREADY jack up prices and reap insanely great profits ? I thought selling overpriced hardware together with locked in software was their entire business model ?
The market share of Apple is directly proportional to the number of people with more money than sense, a number which in this current global crisis is fortunately decreasing.
The people with the technical know how to make Joe's life easier, are _not allowed_ to help beyond documenting what needs to be done to make stuff work.
If the FOSS purists have their way, the people with the know how will be highly discouraged from even documenting what needs to be done.
You should always keep in mind that you only have more control if the "free" software available allows you to do what you want or need in a way that is convenient enough to be useful (which is often governed by person preferences). If proprietary solutions better provide such abilities then they give you more control.
Where's the problem? Or are most people simply too damn lazy to learn how to use it?
I always find it interesting, the idea that those that don't make the same choices as us, or value their time differently, are lazy.
It reminds me of the old saying regarding driving. No matter what speed we choose to drive, those that drive slower than us are idiots, and those that drive faster are crazy.
Actually blaming the software for being hard to adapt to is perfectly valid. Whatever aspect of a piece of software keeps users from adopting it can be considered a shortcoming of the software, not the users.
Mod parent up.
Requiring a EULA be displayed once as a requirement to benefit from all the hard work required to produce software such as Firefox is not unreasonable. Such a narrow and inflexible view of what constitutes free software really does such software a disservice.
The point is, the internet is large and dynamic with folks with a large range of skill and motivation developing for it. The problem of buggy code is NOT going to be fixed at the source and people just want their web using experience to be as pleasant as possible, so fixing the problem at the browser level makes since.
Or to put it differently, changing the code for a single browser is a much smaller target than changing the code of a million web sites.
It will just be a while until enough projects become sufficiently mature that people with zero tolerance for learning will have all the FOSS choices they need to give proprietary software the boot for good.
I think you partially misunderstand. For the software coder that graciously makes his work freely available I can certainly understand the sentiment that it is rude to complain and demand yet more. However those that suggest that anybody not using free software is making an amoral choice are in a different boat. They are imposing a duty on themselves. They can't have it both ways. Also in order for the software to get to the point that you envision above, listening to regular users is a necessary step.
Want to hurry the process along? Learn to code, and if for whatever reason that's too much for you, then you can beta test, write documentation, file bug reports, donate money or equipment... IOW, just be a good FOSS citizen. Yes, we have some assholes in our community -- you were expecting what, utopia?:) But in the end, it's very simple -- you believe in the four freedoms enough to learn what you need to learn or you don't. Nobody has a gun to your head.
In the modern world not everyone needs to be an expert in everything. In fact, we can't. Some of use need to spend our time maintaining expertise in our chosen fields. In am a physician and I think it is a better use of my time to learn more about disease and treatment than learn to code the tools I use just so I can avoid proprietary versions. I sometimes bristle at the implication that I am amoral for making such a choice. I like free software and I use some. But it is not the only reasonable option.
The XO laptop is much more like a traditional product. The software is largely developed by paid developers that are part of an organization that can impose a central vision. Also the Sugar software is largely designed to be part of the XO laptop, part of the whole integrated package, much like an Apple product, and as such contributes to it's desirability and sales. I understand that OLPC is not in it for the money, but from a development standpoint it is very similar to a normal commercial product.
No-one is forcing anyone to use any GPL software "as-is", that's the whole point.
My problem here is that some free software advocates come close to at least wanting for force people to use GPL software. When they make statements like non-free software is ethically tainted, and anybody who uses anything other than free software cannot possibly be making a reasonable choice because they are uninformed, or lazy, etc. then they open themselves up to valid criticisms to make their software work as well as other options.
You may not be in this camp, but many FOSS advocates are. They want to preach that everybody should be using their software of choice (or otherwise be tainted by EVIL), but don't want to be bothered with the details about why making such a switch is not always in a particular users best interest. Look at some of the recent activities of the FSF for examples.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone saying their own choice was sophisticated is NOT the same as saying someone else's choice isn't. It is not an obligatory insult. You are employing false logic.
Saying Mac users are "fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need" is absolutely insulting. If you are going to respond to someone who you believe is calling you (or someone) unsophisticated, at least try to have a sophisticated response.
Every Mac that includes a mouse includes a two-button mouse (functionally) that is configured by default to act as a one-button mouse. That has been true now for quite some time.
Just change the mouse preference to have it recognize both the right and left button.
Since webkit and the new JS engine are open source (and have been) Linux enthusiasts can create a webkit based browser for themselves. I thought that was much of the point of FOSS. Make the code open and we will built it ourselves. Now you want Apple to do it for you?
I believe the point of contention from the investors is: The money being used for R&D is their (the investor's) money, and that compared to a number of other companies MS is getting much less bang for their R&D buck. Thus the feeling that MS is not spending the investors money on R&D wisely.
I have no idea what software uses it, but isn't Core Data from 10.5 too?
Core data was introduced in 10.4.
Here's the beginning of an idea for you: if you were to implement the ultimate Google Apps PC, which relies on a web browser for word editing, presentations, etc. Would it look like IE and a start menu, or could you make it really seamless?
I believe this is precisely the goal that Google's Chrome is meant to address.
Well, of course it's only my opinion! This is /., after all -- I can almost guarantee I'm completely wrong! :)
That said, a non-jailbroken iPhone is pretty useless as I understand it, without the ability to multitask 3rd party apps and having only one outlet to distribute software. What's working for Apple right now is the shiny trendy iPhone buzz ... but if that's going to continue onto something more solid, I'd think they'll need to open up the platform a bit more so that 3rd party apps can be useful.
Just my $0.02 :)
Come on now mods. While I do not agree with everything this posts says it is most clearly NOT a troll, but an honestly stated opinion. This is supposed to be an interactive discussion. What's more, this poster was polite, humorous, and self-effacing... NOT a troll.
Everyone's jailbreaking their phones in order to get semi-decent functionality.
I am not sure this is true. You would need to produce some numbers to support that statement. It might have been true before the App store, but everyone I know who used to have their iPhone's jailbroken (before the App store) no longer does. The applications supplied by the App store meet their needs adequately. (I realize other's do jailbreak and if I had a compelling need I would not hesitate.)
This strategy isn't going to work for Apple
Respectfully, this is your opinion and is, so far, not born out by current events.
RIght now, Apple's model is working. Nokia's is worried about Symbian's future and open-sourcing it is a reaction to that. Apple does not need to react.
There is room for more than one model for how to develop a product. The iPhone is targeted to consumers who want a very well thought out, consistent, easily usable (and therefore more useful) device. Not all of us WANT the iPhone that would result from open source. There are projects like Android to appeal to those consumers.
I thought that Windows had a sort of dodgy design where it divided RAM essentially in two, so for 4 Gigs it divides into 2 Gigs for System (driver) use and 2 Gigs for general use which generally makes Windows use real memory less efficiently than other modern OSes.
Am I wrong here?
Didn't they ALREADY jack up prices and reap insanely great profits ? I thought selling overpriced hardware together with locked in software was their entire business model ? The market share of Apple is directly proportional to the number of people with more money than sense, a number which in this current global crisis is fortunately decreasing.
Well, you must feel better about yourself now...
The people with the technical know how to make Joe's life easier, are _not allowed_ to help beyond documenting what needs to be done to make stuff work.
If the FOSS purists have their way, the people with the know how will be highly discouraged from even documenting what needs to be done.
You should always keep in mind that you only have more control if the "free" software available allows you to do what you want or need in a way that is convenient enough to be useful (which is often governed by person preferences). If proprietary solutions better provide such abilities then they give you more control.
Where's the problem? Or are most people simply too damn lazy to learn how to use it?
I always find it interesting, the idea that those that don't make the same choices as us, or value their time differently, are lazy.
It reminds me of the old saying regarding driving. No matter what speed we choose to drive, those that drive slower than us are idiots, and those that drive faster are crazy.
Actually blaming the software for being hard to adapt to is perfectly valid. Whatever aspect of a piece of software keeps users from adopting it can be considered a shortcoming of the software, not the users.
Mod parent up. Requiring a EULA be displayed once as a requirement to benefit from all the hard work required to produce software such as Firefox is not unreasonable. Such a narrow and inflexible view of what constitutes free software really does such software a disservice.
http://slicedapple.ath.cx/screenshot_1
The site seemed to work fine (as far as I could tell) in Safari 3.1 on OS X 10.5.4.
The point is, the internet is large and dynamic with folks with a large range of skill and motivation developing for it. The problem of buggy code is NOT going to be fixed at the source and people just want their web using experience to be as pleasant as possible, so fixing the problem at the browser level makes since.
Or to put it differently, changing the code for a single browser is a much smaller target than changing the code of a million web sites.
Reality is a bitch.
It will just be a while until enough projects become sufficiently mature that people with zero tolerance for learning will have all the FOSS choices they need to give proprietary software the boot for good.
I think you partially misunderstand. For the software coder that graciously makes his work freely available I can certainly understand the sentiment that it is rude to complain and demand yet more. However those that suggest that anybody not using free software is making an amoral choice are in a different boat. They are imposing a duty on themselves. They can't have it both ways. Also in order for the software to get to the point that you envision above, listening to regular users is a necessary step.
Want to hurry the process along? Learn to code, and if for whatever reason that's too much for you, then you can beta test, write documentation, file bug reports, donate money or equipment... IOW, just be a good FOSS citizen. Yes, we have some assholes in our community -- you were expecting what, utopia? :) But in the end, it's very simple -- you believe in the four freedoms enough to learn what you need to learn or you don't. Nobody has a gun to your head.
In the modern world not everyone needs to be an expert in everything. In fact, we can't. Some of use need to spend our time maintaining expertise in our chosen fields. In am a physician and I think it is a better use of my time to learn more about disease and treatment than learn to code the tools I use just so I can avoid proprietary versions. I sometimes bristle at the implication that I am amoral for making such a choice. I like free software and I use some. But it is not the only reasonable option.
The XO laptop is much more like a traditional product. The software is largely developed by paid developers that are part of an organization that can impose a central vision. Also the Sugar software is largely designed to be part of the XO laptop, part of the whole integrated package, much like an Apple product, and as such contributes to it's desirability and sales. I understand that OLPC is not in it for the money, but from a development standpoint it is very similar to a normal commercial product.
No-one is forcing anyone to use any GPL software "as-is", that's the whole point.
My problem here is that some free software advocates come close to at least wanting for force people to use GPL software. When they make statements like non-free software is ethically tainted, and anybody who uses anything other than free software cannot possibly be making a reasonable choice because they are uninformed, or lazy, etc. then they open themselves up to valid criticisms to make their software work as well as other options.
You may not be in this camp, but many FOSS advocates are. They want to preach that everybody should be using their software of choice (or otherwise be tainted by EVIL), but don't want to be bothered with the details about why making such a switch is not always in a particular users best interest. Look at some of the recent activities of the FSF for examples.
OS X does use bash by default. Originally it used tcsh but then changed (around Panther I believe) to bash.
Good point.