If it doesn't work as advertised though, then it's not so hot.
If I am spending too much time manipulating the GUI, then the GUI design has failed badly. It doesn't matter what OS you are talking about. If you are reaching for the terminal or the bash prompt, the "pretty stuff" has failed you. The problem with "geeks" is not that they prefer form over function but that they understand function well enough to know what they should be able to expect.
They are more demanding.
Being "more productive" is about being able to do more things and to do them with less work.
Any crude thing slapped together by a first time high school hobbyist programmer can hide the ugly details. It takes more inspired design to come up with something that's useful and efficient at the same time. A lot of GUI interfaces (Apple's included), just aren't that inspired.
> The closest Android competitors frankly just haven't gotten the Apple smooth and seamless thing down.
It doesn't have anything to do with "smooth". It's about getting basic core features right. Apple doesn't get basic core features right. If you use your phone for anything remotely "productive", you will likely find Apple's tendency to forget the power user a problem. Despite of all of the hype surrounding "Apple design", they can't quite seem to manage accommodating slightly less trivial use cases.
Entirely too many people buy into the idea that "Apple does it right" without actually bothering to check the basic facts of their assumption/
That's not a complete machine. You will need to add other external (power hogging) components. So whatever power it uses doesn't make for a valid comparison.
Plus the corresponding conglomeration will likely be less maintainable than nearly any PC.
In all likelihood, the new machine will generate no less heat than the old one. In fact, the old one is probably MORE likely to be thermally efficient simply because it is old and obsolete and isn't clocked into the GHz range like a modern bit of gear.
That presupposes that the only thing being improved in the software is fluff that requires dropping support for old hardware.
When you ignore things people want, and put in things they're not interested in, and then make their current hardware unusable you are bound to get some complaints. You also make it harder to build/buy suitably cheap and compact hardware to run this stuff.
It's one thing to ditch a perfectly good $600 Mac because you want to play more interesting content. It's another thing entirely when it's about some fluff in the OSD.
I have two of them. Had a 3rd one but the last one died prematurely.
So your "poverty" argument is just silly.
It's not that we refuse to "pay more", it's that we refuse to "get less".
It's a shame neither one of the survivors will run the new Civ or any older RTS games. They were kind of obsolete the day they were made (the Macs that is).
> Contrary you your assertion, I would say there are few other > companies besides IBM that have done AS MUCH to promote > open source and open technologies.
Yes. By HIDING all of that stuff where the user doesn't see it. Preventing the user from running any program they want. Preventing certain types of programming languages. Preventing certain data formats from being used. Preventing the end user from moving content to and from devices. Preventing certain types of protocols from being used.
In the ways that actually matter, Oracle is a more open technology.
Any Unix vendor has done more.
Apple is just an 80s home computer vendor that uses a Unix kernel under the covers.
It's more like convincing the average person they should care about openness because their video player doesn't play the files that they create with their own video camera. Video is a much more interesting area and is not nearly as "well decided" as music is. That can complicate things.
"Being open" to formats other than what you want to sell people is still important.
> Meaning, of course, that you were waiting for someone else to conquer your computer for you because you lacked the talent to do so yourself.
That's true generally. It doesn't matter what sort of license or development model is involved.
Free Software mainly helps ensure the existence of the platform in the absence of someone like Apple or Atari going out of business. It also makes things more democratic and allows more people to contribute. That kind of collaboration builds on itself even if it is a small fraction of the user base.
That's the fun thing about software. It is infinitely durable and has a marginal production cost of zero.
Also, the "free" nature of the thing means that even large multi-billion dollar corporations can get in on the action too.
For me, Linux was just the first Unix that worked on my hardware. $400 copies of Solaris and NextStep were around but they were SCSI only.
"How Large" is very much something for the judge to decide. It is entirely up to him how punitive he wants to be and how much damage he wants to inflict on the "perpetrator". He has the option to act in a more just manner.
That's why he's there to begin with.
The idea that an OS should be banned because of something like minesweeper just shows a fundemental misunderstanding of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
A pretty GUI is all well in good.
If it doesn't work as advertised though, then it's not so hot.
If I am spending too much time manipulating the GUI, then the GUI design has failed badly. It doesn't matter what OS you are talking about. If you are reaching for the terminal or the bash prompt, the "pretty stuff" has failed you. The problem with "geeks" is not that they prefer form over function but that they understand function well enough to know what they should be able to expect.
They are more demanding.
Being "more productive" is about being able to do more things and to do them with less work.
Any crude thing slapped together by a first time high school hobbyist programmer can hide the ugly details. It takes more inspired design to come up with something that's useful and efficient at the same time. A lot of GUI interfaces (Apple's included), just aren't that inspired.
> The closest Android competitors frankly just haven't gotten the Apple smooth and seamless thing down.
It doesn't have anything to do with "smooth". It's about getting basic core features right. Apple doesn't get basic core features right. If you use your phone for anything remotely "productive", you will likely find Apple's tendency to forget the power user a problem. Despite of all of the hype surrounding "Apple design", they can't quite seem to manage accommodating slightly less trivial use cases.
Entirely too many people buy into the idea that "Apple does it right" without actually bothering to check the basic facts of their assumption/
MacOS only impresses the ignorant. Get over it.
...then the next motivated person could come along would (finish it).
Plus the solution would be available for reuse when someone got it in their mind to do the same thing with Chuck.
Who cares? The project files would not be vi-only. It's not like we're talking about Windows or MacOS software here.
Emacs and vi users could collaborate without even knowing that other people are using a different editor.
The Unix approach wins again.
That's not a complete machine. You will need to add other external (power hogging) components. So whatever power it uses doesn't make for a valid comparison.
Plus the corresponding conglomeration will likely be less maintainable than nearly any PC.
That's a claim you can't back up.
In all likelihood, the new machine will generate no less heat than the old one. In fact, the old one is probably MORE likely to be thermally efficient simply because it is old and obsolete and isn't clocked into the GHz range like a modern bit of gear.
It's not that simple. "Just shoving a card in it" isn't always a practical solution. The card might be larger than the entire system needs to be.
That presupposes that the only thing being improved in the software is fluff that requires dropping support for old hardware.
When you ignore things people want, and put in things they're not interested in, and then make their current hardware unusable you are bound to get some complaints. You also make it harder to build/buy suitably cheap and compact hardware to run this stuff.
It's one thing to ditch a perfectly good $600 Mac because you want to play more interesting content. It's another thing entirely when it's about some fluff in the OSD.
The only value UTC has is as a standard time for people working across timezones. It's a useful reference point that's well known and well understood.
Noon should mean that nothing is casting any shadows. Ideas get progressively more stupid, the longer the shadows are at noon.
I have two of them. Had a 3rd one but the last one died prematurely.
So your "poverty" argument is just silly.
It's not that we refuse to "pay more", it's that we refuse to "get less".
It's a shame neither one of the survivors will run the new Civ or any older RTS games. They were kind of obsolete the day they were made (the Macs that is).
Nah. A Unix user would just use automation. That's what advanced technology is for.
Let the gadget do the work rather than working for the gadget.
No GUI babysitting or manual propulsion required.
> really how well does your "old hardware" like 480P h264 level 4.1 high profile video?
My original MythTV setup 5 years ago handled it just fine actually. If not for BluRay and the HD-PVR I would still be happily using such old hardware.
Quit mistaking your iPad for your dick.
It's just an uncompromisingly honest assessment of the product. The fact that you can't handle it says more about you than me.
Been there. Done that. Not impressed.
It's still an oversized iPod.
So? I know a 90 year old that's very adept at using a PC. She's even better at using a PC than her daughter is and the daughter is an engineer.
You don't need an iPad just because you are older than Methuseleh.
> Only after you've determined that all the components have working Linux drivers.
That's easy enough with a LiveCD or thumbdrive.
> Contrary you your assertion, I would say there are few other
> companies besides IBM that have done AS MUCH to promote
> open source and open technologies.
Yes. By HIDING all of that stuff where the user doesn't see it. Preventing the user from running any program they want. Preventing certain types of programming languages. Preventing certain data formats from being used. Preventing the end user from moving content to and from devices. Preventing certain types of protocols from being used.
In the ways that actually matter, Oracle is a more open technology.
Any Unix vendor has done more.
Apple is just an 80s home computer vendor that uses a Unix kernel under the covers.
You may be finn, but you could also have been talking about the American revolution.
It's a bit of a dirty little secret.
The breakdown is not unlike it is now: 30% Patriots, 30% Loyalists, and 40% who are apathetic.
3 of the 13 colonies nearly didn't vote for Independence.
Nice red herring.
It's more like convincing the average person they should care about openness because their video player doesn't play the files that they create with their own video camera. Video is a much more interesting area and is not nearly as "well decided" as music is. That can complicate things.
"Being open" to formats other than what you want to sell people is still important.
Apple only makes things easy on a particular and limited flight path.
Once you get beyond that, Apple doesn't make things easy. Beyond that, Apple actually makes things harder and/or more bothersome.
Apple is easy only so long as you stay inside the jail and don't try anything interesting.
> Meaning, of course, that you were waiting for someone else to conquer your computer for you because you lacked the talent to do so yourself.
That's true generally. It doesn't matter what sort of license or development model is involved.
Free Software mainly helps ensure the existence of the platform in the absence of someone like Apple or Atari going out of business. It also makes things more democratic and allows more people to contribute. That kind of collaboration builds on itself even if it is a small fraction of the user base.
That's the fun thing about software. It is infinitely durable and has a marginal production cost of zero.
Also, the "free" nature of the thing means that even large multi-billion dollar corporations can get in on the action too.
For me, Linux was just the first Unix that worked on my hardware. $400 copies of Solaris and NextStep were around but they were SCSI only.
"How Large" is very much something for the judge to decide. It is entirely up to him how punitive he wants to be and how much damage he wants to inflict on the "perpetrator". He has the option to act in a more just manner.
That's why he's there to begin with.
The idea that an OS should be banned because of something like minesweeper just shows a fundemental misunderstanding of technology.
Whether or not Android is the "cheap option" is entirely up to the consumer. The actual user gets to make the choice. It's not just made for them.
This sort of liberty is usually considered a good thing.
You're funny.