>...random reboots that were always traceable to the applications they ran...
Clearly the person you are responding to is quite clueless, but I have a question about this part. Do you mean that the applications that the servers ran could cause system crashes or "random reboots?" Isn't the point of stability that the system prevent any malfunctioning/buggy applications from hosing the system? Are user-space apps causing instability or do you guys have special drivers installed? If your user-space apps are able to bring down a system, then I'm not impressed with MS servers. But I haven't worked with MS servers, so I thought I would try to get this clarified so I'm not left with a wrong impression.
Not quite. The ideals of capitalism are infinite profit, infinite growth, and maximum self-interest. The fact that not everybody can have this is definitely not an ideal of capitalism; just the opposite actually. Therefore scarcity is not a determining factor of the existence of capitalism.
It wasn't impossible, but they didn't make it easy for you back in the day.
Yeah, "back in the day" when the Macintosh was first designed when there was no thought of different operating systems needing to be installed. The Macintosh was designed (software and hardware) as a single unit, so of course they didn't start out with a design to allow alternate operating systems. Later on when they found out people wanted to run other operating systems, Apple decided to sponsor porting Linux to PowerPC. It's called Mklinux. Since that time, Macintosh computers have been designed to allow installing other operating systems. Now, Apple doesn't have to do that. If they're so uptight about their hardware or whatever, why have they allowed this for well over a decade?
It's because everyone claiming how "closed" Apple is just feeding into the common misconception. People like to think that Apple is closed, but they give little thought to what they're saying. Is it because of their hardware? No, we've already seen it provides for other operating systems. Is it their software? No, a lot of it is open source (compared to other companies). Is it because of DRM? No, they already said they only have it to adhere to the contracts they have. Is it the fact that they don't sell OS X for use on commodity hardware? Many probably think so, but they forget Apple is primarily a hardware company. So what's the deal?
Personally, I think this misconception continues because Apple's openness threatens Linux. Think about it, if Apple is a great alternative to Windows AND it's pretty open, then Linux just lost its edge. Now, I'm not saying that OS X is as open as Linux or that Apple is as open as, oh, Sun. But the fact that it's pretty open threatens the very point of Linux and thus people continue to try to pretend just the opposite is true; that Apple is somehow more tyrannical or closed than even Microsoft, or at least would be given the opportunity. Bull. Where's the proof of that? All I see are some pretty good attempts by Apple to be open while also making some good products here or there.
You're missing the years prior to open firmware when it was quite impossible to install another operating system without having Mac OS installed first.
Well, it was actually a technical issue. Apple designed the hardware and software themselves, so of course they did not build the early Macintoshes with the thought in mind that anyone would run a different operating system on it. Later on, Apple sponsored porting Linux to the PowerPC. People like to think that Apple is more closed than Microsoft, but that is simply ridiculous. Darwin is still open source (though there is no requirement it remain so), and so is CUPs, and Apple's KHTML improvements, etc. I'm not saying they're as open as Sun or anything, but compared to Microsoft... well, there is no comparison.
> but this Tuesday I finished my first musical cut that was completely performed, recorded, produced and rendered in Linux.
Wow, that's pretty good. Are you coming from Windows? because I didn't even know Windows was really capable of that. Most (well, all) musicians I know have Macs.
> Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of > making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender > claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point > out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
I don't know about the "other" guy, but mentioning that I don't know Dave is a natural response to your post which directly addressed Dave, suggesting that his identity is irrelevant to the point I went on to make. I'm sorry you somehow missed that... Also, if you'll reread what I wrote, you'll find that I never said you wrote anything about liberal media, so your accusation of me putting words in your mouth is false. I myself brought up the liberal media outlets as examples supporting the point I made that.
> And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned > defenses of the status quo. Never.
Great. Your point was already taken. Again, I don't know the guy so I don't know what he writes. But, since you felt the need to reiterate your point, I might as well reiterate mine. So Dave always defends the status quo. Great... who cares? Again returning to the liberal media outlet example, MoveOn.org (I never said you read it nor do I care either way) never posts anything that isn't pure liberal propaganda either, so who cares? Propaganda exists everywhere. The point is, you drew up a straw man by writing about the identities of other people (Dave) rather than making some sort of rational point regarding the issue at hand, and I called you on it. No need to get upset at me, just try to avoid fallacies in your future arguments. That's all. Enjoy.
And MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets don't use propaganda? Of course their motives are 100% pure. Right...
I've never heard of Dave, and I've never been to his site and probably never will, but wise up man. Media is a huge business for both sides, and nobody is free from propaganda. If you want to argue your side based on rational points, then feel free and please do. But if you're going to start attacking someone's character, you've drawn up a straw man and you yourself are trying to influence others with propaganda without making a positive argument for your side.
I've noticed that in Utah, too. And people really are clueless. I hate it when I'm going around and some nut thinks it's his right-of-way to get on the roundabout so he drives in without even looking making me slam on the breaks. The dumbest thing I've seen was someone going around the wrong way. Even if the arrows didn't making it quite obvious, how would it make sense to anyone to turn left on a roundabout....
You seem to be living in a dreamland of some sort. I'll try to help you out.
> It goes beyond "FUD" to simply label some technology as proprietary when it is not.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but many people (perhaps you too) assume that Ogg Theora is patent-free, so let's go over this again: Ogg Theora (specifically the Theora part) is _not_ patent-free for the bazillionth time.
> What Apple and Nokia have done is damage to the future development of the public internet through blatant lies.
Actually, what they have done is prevent a specific video codec from becoming a requirement in a markup language standard, thus maintaining free competition for all codecs and allowing them to compete on their own merits. Whatever their motives are, this seems like a good idea to me.
> I'm not sure how it would be defined legally, but fraud is a word that comes to mind.
Fraud? Unlikely. It seems you should get a clue before you post nonsense that people might believe. It seems many Ogg users are disgruntled that their pet codec won't get a free pass. Vent your frustrations on a pillow. It helps. The current HTML standard has no image or media requirements and the internet works just fine. Video codec requirements have no place in a markup language specification. It would be just as bad if Apple/Nokia successfully push their own pet codecs into the standard (which hasn't happened yet), but as it is now there is no use throwing a tissy fit over Ogg Theora being rejected where it also doesn't belong.
It's great that you've had a good experience with Vista. I happen to be in the "use whatever tool works the best for you" camp, so if you like Vista that's fine with me. I should point out, however, that your points do not apply to most people. Proof: people are indeed downgrading from Vista to XP. That does not match your theory that XP is "good enough" so people don't upgrade because the fact is that people (and lots of them) ARE upgrading to Vista and then turning away. If it was only the complacency of XP users that was holding back Vista adoption, then we shouldn't see people fleeing from Vista. The fact is, although you seem happy with Vista and that's great, many many many people are not satisfied with Vista at all.
On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Vista because it doesn't add enough value for me. I mean.. it takes them 5 years and then they price it insanely high and for what? A sidebar with useless "gadgets?" Aero? Throw on top of that poor compatibility and the host of other problems that I and others have experienced, and you have to ask yourself what you paid for. Of course, people will argue the value is "under the hood," but those people will have to get real. MS threw away everything that was cool from Longhorn and nothing remained for Vista. Arguably little remains to improve Vista over XP, and I would say that the cons of Vista negate any pros it has going for it.
That's only comparing Vista to XP, an old operating system by this time. The competition from Apple and the linux community hasn't been stagnant either, so at t his point I would say that the cost of Vista certainly doesn't match the value, and while such good alternatives, I can't really recommend Vista to anyone. But again, if you're already using it and it works for you, excellent. Most people however will not find the value it would take to justify the costs of upgrading (which are higher than just the cost of Vista alone).
I don't know about Intel... A few years ago I used an AMD Athlon in my PC because it was cheaper and faster at once. This last time around I went with an Intel quad-core because it was fast and cheaper, and there was nothing in the AMD department to match it. Comparing operating systems is subjective, but you can easily quantify processor performance (i.e. benchmarks). The only thing Intel had to do to convince me to go with their processor this time was produce a better product, otherwise I would have gone with AMD. Only an idiot doesn't try to measure the value of what they intend to buy. That's difficult with operating systems, but it's easy with processors.
Yup. He's been doing it successfully for years against Mac users, but he's more the willing to rile up just about anybody about anything including Linux, etc. as long as he gets his hits.
Perfect synopsis. It's too bad that Slashdot continues featuring his articles and thereby encouraging his continued trolling. I almost always find more insightful points from other no-name blogs featured here than from this guy.
Re:High level != "automated memory management"
on
State of the Onion 11
·
· Score: 1
> Can we please stop bashing C++ memory management?
That would be nice merely because all the bashing becomes tedious. I would like to say that C++ is probably mostly bashed by idiots who simply don't "get it," but let me instead mention (not to you specifically) how pointless debating relative programming language superiority is because no one language fits every possible use. C++ is great because it's a very complete object oriented language and API (including STL) with a small/fast runtime. It's great for high-performance games. Perl has great support for string manipulation. It's great for reports, web apps, and other tasks. Java/C#/Obj-C support dynamic typing and built-in garbage collection for rapid development. They're great for desktop apps.
The bottom line is just use the tool that is best suited for the job. I wouldn't use C++ for outputting reports when Perl has far better string manipulation. I wouldn't use Perl for my high-requirements 1st person shooter because C++ has better support for objects. Only idiots constantly advocate a single language, and the reason people bash other languages is because they just don't understand, and they're probably too lazy to figure it out.
> It seems there have been small -- or maybe even strange, impractical -- advances in robotics
We can draw a picture of a tree and otherwise produce accurate models of our world in many cases, but God's greatest creation will not so easily be emulated. It will yet be a while until we will truly understand how the brain works and how intelligence can be programmed, but it may happen after lots of research. How incredible. It's interesting how people can be fooled into believing such things can be "randomed" into existence. They believe God to be improbable while they do not stop to consider the improbability of what they really believe. Interesting.
> Meanwhile, Linux was 'stuck' with the need to provide an alternative view on which pieces of software owned which > binaries that were mixed in with everything else. To get out of a relatively messy situation that was undeniably there, > they rolled the most sophisticated package management for a platform ever (mainly deb and rpm). With that, installs > *knew* in a standardized way what other programs needed to be installed to work right, and things kind of 'just > worked'. It was beautiful.
Ahh, and then there was Mac OS X.
Click. Drag. Installed.
The executables and resources all fit seamlessly into the all-encompassing idea that is the Application Bundle so you can install, delete, or move around software at will, in a fashion that make perfect sense. It is indeed quite beautiful.
> But there's a presumption that the US is fabulous and sacred and utterly superior and...
Or maybe this whole thing is an attempt at controlling a problem which undoubtedly exists regardless of how many people try to pretend it doesn't. I would say your said presumption is accurate considering that people are entering the country illegally for a reason; if every nation was the same then nobody would risk it. Most illegals want work, but since 9/11 we no longer have to stretch our imaginations to think some may want to do Bad Things to us. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable a thing at this time to monitor who is coming in as a step to handling the problem.
I think your own presumption that legitimate visitors would diminish is highly unlikely. If there are those who are willing to risk getting in illegally, there will always be those willing to put up with some security precautions to get in legally.
> And it's really in this regard the fact that Windows and Mac OS X are unconfigurable becomes obvious.
Both Windows and Mac OS X may be less configurable in this respect, but I would just emphasize that it doesn't decrease my efficiency at all, and it probably increases the efficiency of many other users. Here's why:
Tools contribute a lot more to efficiency than many things that would be configured in the window manager. For this reason, it is possible for me to be very efficient anywhere, even in Windows as long as I install a decent shell and terminal, install some vital command-line gnu tools, and install one or more script runtimes (I use perl). I also am dependent upon vim for efficiency in many things, but that's just me. Once I've got that, I don't care about much else that has to do with configuring the window manager. I just need it to switch me between processes and that's about it. Each window manager or desktop (Windows, aqua, kde, gnome, or even fluxbox) does things a little differently, but honestly the differences won't contribute to or degrade efficiency on a large scale: it's the availability of the tools that is important (and fortunately, the important tools are available on any platform, although it's too bad Windows doesn't come with any). A lot of people try to argue that a window manager is better than another in terms of workflow efficiency, but it's nonsense. You can learn and get used to any modern window manager and use it just about as effectively as someone using a different window manager, but if these vital tools are gone you're hosed.
Now I'll tell you why OS X is probably better for new or casual users in terms of efficiency: casual users don't know how to write perl scripts to perform mundane or repetitive tasks, and they don't know how to use grep or the other tools that make us more experienced users effective, but Apple has succeeded in creating smart gui front-ends to these tools or features that really work well. The three things I am referring to are AppleScript (which has been around a very long time), Spotlight (which also has comparable implementations on Windows and other platforms), and Automator (which is like a front-end to AppleScript which lets you do repetitive tasks without knowing any scripting at all). Even I use these tools sometimes; they're dead simple to understand and they certainly increase efficiency more than window manager options.
> I don't know anything about tweaking MacOS, other than the fact that i've never seen anyone using > a recent version of MacOS that looked like it had been customized any significant extent.
Yeah, it isn't very configurable. I'm not sure about Leopard, but in every OS X I've used there are only two sanctioned "themes," aqua and graphite. Aqua being the most common and graphite being nearly the same thing as aqua but using grey instead of blue. There is no sanctioned way to change to custom themes and there are no event sounds. You can manually change system files or run a 3rd-party app to try to do it, but I don't trust that. When it comes down to it, OS 9 was considerably more configurable than OS X in this sense.
But I agree with this discussion in that, it is plenty configurable enough for me. When I was a kid, I thought it was cool to change everything and make it look like sci-fi or whatever, but those days are past. Now that I'm older and a developer, I've found that beyond changing the desktop picture, positioning the taskbar or dock how I like it, and perhaps optimizing some menus to my workflow, I really don't change the default configuration all that much. Most things that I change relate to making me use the computer faster (get stuff done) rather than on aesthetics.
> please not - i don't need every windows malware able to run on my mac...
Except windows malware is just that: malware written for Windows. While it could potentially run, malware wouldn't automatically become a problem. You'd have a much easier time accidently running OS X malware than Windows malware. Think of it as WINE for OS X (which is apparently exactly what it is or will be except Jaguar can load the binaries itself). People running Windows binaries via WINE on Linux don't experience the same problems with malware because the expected security flaws in the underlying OS and/or applications aren't there.
In short, if Apple plans to implement a built-in WINE-like ability to run some Windows binaries in OS X, there is no reason to suspect it will cause a breeding ground for Windows malware. Malware only has the opportunity to run if it can somehow get installed.
> Apple, well, Apple is not longer a personal computer company and is deep in consumer devices.
Note: That certainly doesn't mean Apple's Macintosh business isn't doing well by itself, because it very much is. Of course the iMac turned that around for Apple and it his been steadily increasing since, but your are correct in that their new consumer devices business is giving them a lot of mindshare and is probably driving many of the PC -> Mac converts at this point.
The point is, it is definitely still possible to make money in the PC business, but the environment is changing like it does in many markets. Some can keep up and adjust their strategies and some can't. I'm surprised IBM apparently thinks they can't compete. It's more common for companies to assume they can compete and adjust their strategies accordingly, but perhaps that's what they've been doing to no avail these past years. I don't know; I haven't seen any numbers.
Seconded. A G4 with Tiger used to be my main machine, but it's taken 2nd place to a new machine I built, and I got Vista Basic for it. I really like Tiger and I probably would have gotten an iMac if I wasn't a starving student, but this machine was a lot cheaper to build than a comparable Apple computer (~iMac range). I still use the G4 for OS X development and other things, but my point is this: Vista has generally been really stable for me. Here are the 2 things I hate about Vista:
1- The taskbar (I keep it on the right side) does not stay the same size I set it as whenever I play games which capture the screen, even if I lock the taskbar. This drives me insane. I get done playing a game and I return to my desktop with a taskbar twice as big or sometimes smaller. The actual new size varies, but there is a size it usually goes to. SO ANNOYING. 2- Under some circumstances, Vista won't come out of sleep. It actually causes my motherboard to sound an alarm until I reboot the machine. Who knows what that's about....
These problems are certainly not show-stoppers for me, but if Apple would release a reasonably priced gaming computer I would have just assumed use OS X which is normally great.
*rant* Currently if you want to do serious gaming on a Mac you have to go with the Mac Pro which is way expensive. All they would need to do is outfit a computer like the iMac with a decent video card and perhaps faster components and price it at ~ $1,500 and it would sell like hotcakes IMHO. They should be able to build a decent machine at that price and still have a decent margin. *end rant*
> Vista is only "universally" known for being terrible if your Universe extends to (and only to) the borders of SlashDot
More accurately, Vista _isn't_ universally known for being terrible if your universe includes only Microsoft. By universal, I mean common public opinion rather than everyone having the same opinion, and you will have a hard time arguing that common opinion _outside_ of Slashdot is positive, or perhaps you don't read other news or talk to very many people. This view isn't peculiar to Slashdot by any means; it's the general consensus you'll see from pretty much all sources.
> The Xbox 360 is doing just fine. So I'm not sure what your point was with that whole tangent.
Microsoft pledged a billion dollars for support issues alone for the Xbox 360. They planned to use the success of other products like the Zune to offset the losses attributable to their game division. I don't know what your source is, but Xbox 360 isn't doing so great. For some reason you couldn't follow this "tangent" which is simply just a supporting example of the main point: the idea that bad or mediocre products should at least lead to bad or mediocre profit. Now before anyone takes this out of context, keep in mind that I didn't specifically say the Xbox 360 is a bad or mediocre product, but rather that the competition was able to produce more innovative products and so in comparison, the Xbox 360 can be considered mediocre. Again, this example is indicative of a good and healthy environment where companies compete to produce innovative products. Competition exists!
Now, to answer your question regarding people seemingly not moving to Linux... that's the whole point. Competition doesn't exist or is somehow being stifled in the OS market. If they were on a level playing ground, Linux, being free and having the other technical advantages you yourself listed, would have a much stronger place in the market than it has today.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...random reboots that were always traceable to the applications they ran...
Clearly the person you are responding to is quite clueless, but I have a question about this part. Do you mean that the applications that the servers ran could cause system crashes or "random reboots?" Isn't the point of stability that the system prevent any malfunctioning/buggy applications from hosing the system? Are user-space apps causing instability or do you guys have special drivers installed? If your user-space apps are able to bring down a system, then I'm not impressed with MS servers. But I haven't worked with MS servers, so I thought I would try to get this clarified so I'm not left with a wrong impression.
Cheers.
> Without scarcity, there can be no capitalism.
Not quite. The ideals of capitalism are infinite profit, infinite growth, and maximum self-interest. The fact that not everybody can have this is definitely not an ideal of capitalism; just the opposite actually. Therefore scarcity is not a determining factor of the existence of capitalism.
It wasn't impossible, but they didn't make it easy for you back in the day.
Yeah, "back in the day" when the Macintosh was first designed when there was no thought of different operating systems needing to be installed. The Macintosh was designed (software and hardware) as a single unit, so of course they didn't start out with a design to allow alternate operating systems. Later on when they found out people wanted to run other operating systems, Apple decided to sponsor porting Linux to PowerPC. It's called Mklinux. Since that time, Macintosh computers have been designed to allow installing other operating systems. Now, Apple doesn't have to do that. If they're so uptight about their hardware or whatever, why have they allowed this for well over a decade?
It's because everyone claiming how "closed" Apple is just feeding into the common misconception. People like to think that Apple is closed, but they give little thought to what they're saying. Is it because of their hardware? No, we've already seen it provides for other operating systems. Is it their software? No, a lot of it is open source (compared to other companies). Is it because of DRM? No, they already said they only have it to adhere to the contracts they have. Is it the fact that they don't sell OS X for use on commodity hardware? Many probably think so, but they forget Apple is primarily a hardware company. So what's the deal?
Personally, I think this misconception continues because Apple's openness threatens Linux. Think about it, if Apple is a great alternative to Windows AND it's pretty open, then Linux just lost its edge. Now, I'm not saying that OS X is as open as Linux or that Apple is as open as, oh, Sun. But the fact that it's pretty open threatens the very point of Linux and thus people continue to try to pretend just the opposite is true; that Apple is somehow more tyrannical or closed than even Microsoft, or at least would be given the opportunity. Bull. Where's the proof of that? All I see are some pretty good attempts by Apple to be open while also making some good products here or there.
You're missing the years prior to open firmware when it was quite impossible to install another operating system without having Mac OS installed first.
Well, it was actually a technical issue. Apple designed the hardware and software themselves, so of course they did not build the early Macintoshes with the thought in mind that anyone would run a different operating system on it. Later on, Apple sponsored porting Linux to the PowerPC. People like to think that Apple is more closed than Microsoft, but that is simply ridiculous. Darwin is still open source (though there is no requirement it remain so), and so is CUPs, and Apple's KHTML improvements, etc. I'm not saying they're as open as Sun or anything, but compared to Microsoft... well, there is no comparison.
> but this Tuesday I finished my first musical cut that was completely performed, recorded, produced and rendered in Linux.
Wow, that's pretty good. Are you coming from Windows? because I didn't even know Windows was really capable of that. Most (well, all) musicians I know have Macs.
> Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of
> making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender
> claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point
> out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
I don't know about the "other" guy, but mentioning that I don't know Dave is a natural response to your post which directly addressed Dave, suggesting that his identity is irrelevant to the point I went on to make. I'm sorry you somehow missed that... Also, if you'll reread what I wrote, you'll find that I never said you wrote anything about liberal media, so your accusation of me putting words in your mouth is false. I myself brought up the liberal media outlets as examples supporting the point I made that.
> And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned
> defenses of the status quo. Never.
Great. Your point was already taken. Again, I don't know the guy so I don't know what he writes. But, since you felt the need to reiterate your point, I might as well reiterate mine. So Dave always defends the status quo. Great... who cares? Again returning to the liberal media outlet example, MoveOn.org (I never said you read it nor do I care either way) never posts anything that isn't pure liberal propaganda either, so who cares? Propaganda exists everywhere. The point is, you drew up a straw man by writing about the identities of other people (Dave) rather than making some sort of rational point regarding the issue at hand, and I called you on it. No need to get upset at me, just try to avoid fallacies in your future arguments. That's all. Enjoy.
And MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets don't use propaganda? Of course their motives are 100% pure. Right...
I've never heard of Dave, and I've never been to his site and probably never will, but wise up man. Media is a huge business for both sides, and nobody is free from propaganda. If you want to argue your side based on rational points, then feel free and please do. But if you're going to start attacking someone's character, you've drawn up a straw man and you yourself are trying to influence others with propaganda without making a positive argument for your side.
I've noticed that in Utah, too. And people really are clueless. I hate it when I'm going around and some nut thinks it's his right-of-way to get on the roundabout so he drives in without even looking making me slam on the breaks. The dumbest thing I've seen was someone going around the wrong way. Even if the arrows didn't making it quite obvious, how would it make sense to anyone to turn left on a roundabout....
You seem to be living in a dreamland of some sort. I'll try to help you out.
> It goes beyond "FUD" to simply label some technology as proprietary when it is not.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but many people (perhaps you too) assume that Ogg Theora is patent-free, so let's go over this again: Ogg Theora (specifically the Theora part) is _not_ patent-free for the bazillionth time.
> What Apple and Nokia have done is damage to the future development of the public internet through blatant lies.
Actually, what they have done is prevent a specific video codec from becoming a requirement in a markup language standard, thus maintaining free competition for all codecs and allowing them to compete on their own merits. Whatever their motives are, this seems like a good idea to me.
> I'm not sure how it would be defined legally, but fraud is a word that comes to mind.
Fraud? Unlikely. It seems you should get a clue before you post nonsense that people might believe. It seems many Ogg users are disgruntled that their pet codec won't get a free pass. Vent your frustrations on a pillow. It helps. The current HTML standard has no image or media requirements and the internet works just fine. Video codec requirements have no place in a markup language specification. It would be just as bad if Apple/Nokia successfully push their own pet codecs into the standard (which hasn't happened yet), but as it is now there is no use throwing a tissy fit over Ogg Theora being rejected where it also doesn't belong.
It's great that you've had a good experience with Vista. I happen to be in the "use whatever tool works the best for you" camp, so if you like Vista that's fine with me. I should point out, however, that your points do not apply to most people. Proof: people are indeed downgrading from Vista to XP. That does not match your theory that XP is "good enough" so people don't upgrade because the fact is that people (and lots of them) ARE upgrading to Vista and then turning away. If it was only the complacency of XP users that was holding back Vista adoption, then we shouldn't see people fleeing from Vista. The fact is, although you seem happy with Vista and that's great, many many many people are not satisfied with Vista at all.
On a personal note, I'm disappointed with Vista because it doesn't add enough value for me. I mean.. it takes them 5 years and then they price it insanely high and for what? A sidebar with useless "gadgets?" Aero? Throw on top of that poor compatibility and the host of other problems that I and others have experienced, and you have to ask yourself what you paid for. Of course, people will argue the value is "under the hood," but those people will have to get real. MS threw away everything that was cool from Longhorn and nothing remained for Vista. Arguably little remains to improve Vista over XP, and I would say that the cons of Vista negate any pros it has going for it.
That's only comparing Vista to XP, an old operating system by this time. The competition from Apple and the linux community hasn't been stagnant either, so at t his point I would say that the cost of Vista certainly doesn't match the value, and while such good alternatives, I can't really recommend Vista to anyone. But again, if you're already using it and it works for you, excellent. Most people however will not find the value it would take to justify the costs of upgrading (which are higher than just the cost of Vista alone).
I don't know about Intel... A few years ago I used an AMD Athlon in my PC because it was cheaper and faster at once. This last time around I went with an Intel quad-core because it was fast and cheaper, and there was nothing in the AMD department to match it. Comparing operating systems is subjective, but you can easily quantify processor performance (i.e. benchmarks). The only thing Intel had to do to convince me to go with their processor this time was produce a better product, otherwise I would have gone with AMD. Only an idiot doesn't try to measure the value of what they intend to buy. That's difficult with operating systems, but it's easy with processors.
Yup. He's been doing it successfully for years against Mac users, but he's more the willing to rile up just about anybody about anything including Linux, etc. as long as he gets his hits.
Perfect synopsis. It's too bad that Slashdot continues featuring his articles and thereby encouraging his continued trolling. I almost always find more insightful points from other no-name blogs featured here than from this guy.
> Can we please stop bashing C++ memory management?
That would be nice merely because all the bashing becomes tedious. I would like to say that C++ is probably mostly bashed by idiots who simply don't "get it," but let me instead mention (not to you specifically) how pointless debating relative programming language superiority is because no one language fits every possible use. C++ is great because it's a very complete object oriented language and API (including STL) with a small/fast runtime. It's great for high-performance games. Perl has great support for string manipulation. It's great for reports, web apps, and other tasks. Java/C#/Obj-C support dynamic typing and built-in garbage collection for rapid development. They're great for desktop apps.
The bottom line is just use the tool that is best suited for the job. I wouldn't use C++ for outputting reports when Perl has far better string manipulation. I wouldn't use Perl for my high-requirements 1st person shooter because C++ has better support for objects. Only idiots constantly advocate a single language, and the reason people bash other languages is because they just don't understand, and they're probably too lazy to figure it out.
> It seems there have been small -- or maybe even strange, impractical -- advances in robotics
We can draw a picture of a tree and otherwise produce accurate models of our world in many cases, but God's greatest creation will not so easily be emulated. It will yet be a while until we will truly understand how the brain works and how intelligence can be programmed, but it may happen after lots of research. How incredible. It's interesting how people can be fooled into believing such things can be "randomed" into existence. They believe God to be improbable while they do not stop to consider the improbability of what they really believe. Interesting.
> Meanwhile, Linux was 'stuck' with the need to provide an alternative view on which pieces of software owned which
> binaries that were mixed in with everything else. To get out of a relatively messy situation that was undeniably there,
> they rolled the most sophisticated package management for a platform ever (mainly deb and rpm). With that, installs
> *knew* in a standardized way what other programs needed to be installed to work right, and things kind of 'just
> worked'. It was beautiful.
Ahh, and then there was Mac OS X.
Click.
Drag.
Installed.
The executables and resources all fit seamlessly into the all-encompassing idea that is the Application Bundle so you can install, delete, or move around software at will, in a fashion that make perfect sense. It is indeed quite beautiful.
> But there's a presumption that the US is fabulous and sacred and utterly superior and...
Or maybe this whole thing is an attempt at controlling a problem which undoubtedly exists regardless of how many people try to pretend it doesn't. I would say your said presumption is accurate considering that people are entering the country illegally for a reason; if every nation was the same then nobody would risk it. Most illegals want work, but since 9/11 we no longer have to stretch our imaginations to think some may want to do Bad Things to us. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable a thing at this time to monitor who is coming in as a step to handling the problem.
I think your own presumption that legitimate visitors would diminish is highly unlikely. If there are those who are willing to risk getting in illegally, there will always be those willing to put up with some security precautions to get in legally.
> And it's really in this regard the fact that Windows and Mac OS X are unconfigurable becomes obvious.
Both Windows and Mac OS X may be less configurable in this respect, but I would just emphasize that it doesn't decrease my efficiency at all, and it probably increases the efficiency of many other users. Here's why:
Tools contribute a lot more to efficiency than many things that would be configured in the window manager. For this reason, it is possible for me to be very efficient anywhere, even in Windows as long as I install a decent shell and terminal, install some vital command-line gnu tools, and install one or more script runtimes (I use perl). I also am dependent upon vim for efficiency in many things, but that's just me. Once I've got that, I don't care about much else that has to do with configuring the window manager. I just need it to switch me between processes and that's about it. Each window manager or desktop (Windows, aqua, kde, gnome, or even fluxbox) does things a little differently, but honestly the differences won't contribute to or degrade efficiency on a large scale: it's the availability of the tools that is important (and fortunately, the important tools are available on any platform, although it's too bad Windows doesn't come with any). A lot of people try to argue that a window manager is better than another in terms of workflow efficiency, but it's nonsense. You can learn and get used to any modern window manager and use it just about as effectively as someone using a different window manager, but if these vital tools are gone you're hosed.
Now I'll tell you why OS X is probably better for new or casual users in terms of efficiency: casual users don't know how to write perl scripts to perform mundane or repetitive tasks, and they don't know how to use grep or the other tools that make us more experienced users effective, but Apple has succeeded in creating smart gui front-ends to these tools or features that really work well. The three things I am referring to are AppleScript (which has been around a very long time), Spotlight (which also has comparable implementations on Windows and other platforms), and Automator (which is like a front-end to AppleScript which lets you do repetitive tasks without knowing any scripting at all). Even I use these tools sometimes; they're dead simple to understand and they certainly increase efficiency more than window manager options.
> I don't know anything about tweaking MacOS, other than the fact that i've never seen anyone using
> a recent version of MacOS that looked like it had been customized any significant extent.
Yeah, it isn't very configurable. I'm not sure about Leopard, but in every OS X I've used there are only two sanctioned "themes," aqua and graphite. Aqua being the most common and graphite being nearly the same thing as aqua but using grey instead of blue. There is no sanctioned way to change to custom themes and there are no event sounds. You can manually change system files or run a 3rd-party app to try to do it, but I don't trust that. When it comes down to it, OS 9 was considerably more configurable than OS X in this sense.
But I agree with this discussion in that, it is plenty configurable enough for me. When I was a kid, I thought it was cool to change everything and make it look like sci-fi or whatever, but those days are past. Now that I'm older and a developer, I've found that beyond changing the desktop picture, positioning the taskbar or dock how I like it, and perhaps optimizing some menus to my workflow, I really don't change the default configuration all that much. Most things that I change relate to making me use the computer faster (get stuff done) rather than on aesthetics.
> Jaguar? You expect this to be backported to 10.2?
You got me. Jaguar is 10.2 and of course I meant the latest cat, whatever it is.
Thanks.
> please not - i don't need every windows malware able to run on my mac...
Except windows malware is just that: malware written for Windows. While it could potentially run, malware wouldn't automatically become a problem. You'd have a much easier time accidently running OS X malware than Windows malware. Think of it as WINE for OS X (which is apparently exactly what it is or will be except Jaguar can load the binaries itself). People running Windows binaries via WINE on Linux don't experience the same problems with malware because the expected security flaws in the underlying OS and/or applications aren't there.
In short, if Apple plans to implement a built-in WINE-like ability to run some Windows binaries in OS X, there is no reason to suspect it will cause a breeding ground for Windows malware. Malware only has the opportunity to run if it can somehow get installed.
> Apple, well, Apple is not longer a personal computer company and is deep in consumer devices.
Note: That certainly doesn't mean Apple's Macintosh business isn't doing well by itself, because it very much is. Of course the iMac turned that around for Apple and it his been steadily increasing since, but your are correct in that their new consumer devices business is giving them a lot of mindshare and is probably driving many of the PC -> Mac converts at this point.
The point is, it is definitely still possible to make money in the PC business, but the environment is changing like it does in many markets. Some can keep up and adjust their strategies and some can't. I'm surprised IBM apparently thinks they can't compete. It's more common for companies to assume they can compete and adjust their strategies accordingly, but perhaps that's what they've been doing to no avail these past years. I don't know; I haven't seen any numbers.
Seconded. A G4 with Tiger used to be my main machine, but it's taken 2nd place to a new machine I built, and I got Vista Basic for it. I really like Tiger and I probably would have gotten an iMac if I wasn't a starving student, but this machine was a lot cheaper to build than a comparable Apple computer (~iMac range). I still use the G4 for OS X development and other things, but my point is this: Vista has generally been really stable for me. Here are the 2 things I hate about Vista:
1- The taskbar (I keep it on the right side) does not stay the same size I set it as whenever I play games which capture the screen, even if I lock the taskbar. This drives me insane. I get done playing a game and I return to my desktop with a taskbar twice as big or sometimes smaller. The actual new size varies, but there is a size it usually goes to. SO ANNOYING.
2- Under some circumstances, Vista won't come out of sleep. It actually causes my motherboard to sound an alarm until I reboot the machine. Who knows what that's about....
These problems are certainly not show-stoppers for me, but if Apple would release a reasonably priced gaming computer I would have just assumed use OS X which is normally great.
*rant* Currently if you want to do serious gaming on a Mac you have to go with the Mac Pro which is way expensive. All they would need to do is outfit a computer like the iMac with a decent video card and perhaps faster components and price it at ~ $1,500 and it would sell like hotcakes IMHO. They should be able to build a decent machine at that price and still have a decent margin. *end rant*
> But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy.
Wait a second. I thought Leopard came with a time machine?
> Vista is only "universally" known for being terrible if your Universe extends to (and only to) the borders of SlashDot
More accurately, Vista _isn't_ universally known for being terrible if your universe includes only Microsoft. By universal, I mean common public opinion rather than everyone having the same opinion, and you will have a hard time arguing that common opinion _outside_ of Slashdot is positive, or perhaps you don't read other news or talk to very many people. This view isn't peculiar to Slashdot by any means; it's the general consensus you'll see from pretty much all sources.
> The Xbox 360 is doing just fine. So I'm not sure what your point was with that whole tangent.
Microsoft pledged a billion dollars for support issues alone for the Xbox 360. They planned to use the success of other products like the Zune to offset the losses attributable to their game division. I don't know what your source is, but Xbox 360 isn't doing so great. For some reason you couldn't follow this "tangent" which is simply just a supporting example of the main point: the idea that bad or mediocre products should at least lead to bad or mediocre profit. Now before anyone takes this out of context, keep in mind that I didn't specifically say the Xbox 360 is a bad or mediocre product, but rather that the competition was able to produce more innovative products and so in comparison, the Xbox 360 can be considered mediocre. Again, this example is indicative of a good and healthy environment where companies compete to produce innovative products. Competition exists!
Now, to answer your question regarding people seemingly not moving to Linux... that's the whole point. Competition doesn't exist or is somehow being stifled in the OS market. If they were on a level playing ground, Linux, being free and having the other technical advantages you yourself listed, would have a much stronger place in the market than it has today.