Pretty much every browser I've ever used downloads files and saves them in a place on the drive known as the cache. Is saving certain filetypes in a different location really that much different?
Even if you stay with AT&T, I can't imagine anyone wanting a non-jailbroken iPhone. It's all the third-party applications that makes the iPhone so awesome.
The only thing I remember about Warp was that you could buy a IBM machine that came with Warp and Windows. But by that time Windows was already established as the de facto standard, so I'm not sure Warp ever had a chance.
As much as an Apple fan as I am, I really don't think you can say MacOS of the time was better than Windows 95. Apple had some advantages in the interface design, but beyond that MacOS was way behind the times and never really did progress beyond that point until OS X was released.
I distinctly remember being in an environment that had both Macs and Windows systems around the time Windows 95 was new and nobody wanted to touch the Macs. The Windows machines were that much better. I believe Apple could have competed with Windows if they tried, but they were too busy with other pursuits.
ActiveRecord doesn't do SQL "correctly" for very good reasons. If you have a reason why you need to use SQL like it was designed, you probably shouldn't be using ActiveRecord at all. However, that does not preclude you from using the rest of the Rails framework.
If you try to do it the same way you scale applications running under Apache, for example, you probably won't get very far.
I disagree. Sure, the configuration may be different, but ultimately, in simplistic terms, no matter what your framework/language you just keep adding processes and servers until you've met your load requirements. There is nothing in Rails that forces you to keep your application on a single server, for example.
If I want to learn how to do something, I want to see code not read about it. I know one issue that stumps a lot of people is how to handle multiple models with one form. The best way to show how to properly handle that situation is to have a sample application in front of you that implements multiple models with one form.
However, these code examples do not belong in the documentation. The documentation is where I go to figure out what I should expect when I pass a certain attribute to a method. Learning how to design an application does not belong here.
I've been working with Rails pretty much from day one, so I've come to learn what works and what doesn't myself. But if I was starting today I'd want to see a full-fledged application that implements some of the less obvious problems so I could see how and why it was implemented that way. Even the best documentation in the world would not be able to explain it as clearly as just sticking the actual code in front of me.
I am no longer a Ruby on Rails fan as I have found more and more people complain about scalability.
Which is silly because Rails scales exactly the same way every shared nothing web architecture does. If you're application won't scale in Rails, it won't scale if you rewrote it in PHP, or even C for that matter.
SQL of any variety is the wrong tool for the job here. He just wants to store a hash. BDB is probably ideal, although there may be some merit to using something akin to CSV or XML if there is a need to exchange the data with other applications.
They're making 10% profit at best. I can give my money to the bank and make 4% without any risk at all. If they aren't doing a whole lot better than what the bank has to offer, there would be no point for them to continuing being in the business of oil.
Safari hooking into the kernel would be pretty silly. However, since WebKit is a control used by many applications it may hook itself deep in the graphics layer. On other UNIXes you'd restart your X server, but on OS X it's just as easy to reboot the whole system at that point because all your applications are going to be killed anyway.
Higher quality software costs exponentially more to create. The market has decided that it wants buggy but cheap software. Personally, I agree with the market. I could shell out $100,000 for a bug free copy of Act!, but I'd rather take my chances with a $100 copy and I'm sure you would too.
It's still upgrade pricing. Just because the content on the DVD is identical is irrelevant. We have no idea how much Apple actually charges for the pre-installed "full" version of OS X, but it's probably more than $129.
When I read it, I assumed there really were rootkits in the wild with those names. Then again, I've never heard of OneCare until now which didn't help.
The boxed copy of OS X is an upgrade because it's impossible, legally speaking, for you to install it on any hardware that didn't already come with the "full" version of OS X. The hardware itself is the check that you have already purchased the "full" version of OS X. Just because Apple handles their upgrades differently than everyone else, doesn't mean it's not an upgrade.
Now, whether or not the "full" version of OS X is more expensive than the upgrade version is unknown to everyone except Apple themselves, but why wouldn't OS X be worth at least as much as Windows?
For me, OS X on the PC has some appeal for one simple reason: Nobody around here will fix Macs. If my PC breaks I can drop into any one of the numerous local computer shops. When my Powerbook has problems (and it's had a fair number of problems!) I'm looking at six hours on the road.
I like the Apple hardware/software combination and am willing to pay a premium for it, but the difficulty in getting things fixed is a concern to me. One that would be alleviated by using a generic PC.
Perhaps PCs cost 1/2 as much as the Mac does because of the added cost of OS X? The boxed version for $129 is just the upgrade version. Who knows what the "full" version costs. I'm guessing it's in line with what Windows costs; in the $400 range. However, in the case of Windows, Microsoft will give away the OEM version for essentially nothing so that cost isn't passed on to the hardware like it is with the Mac.
Last time I checked it could easily take several months to write and publish a book. In the world of business one needs real-time information that only the internet can provide, else your competitors are going to beat you out every time.
This is the Canadian government we are talking about. The same government that lets you file your GST returns online, but you may only do so between 9AM and 5PM EST. Maybe some day they will invest in some computers to handle the job instead of having their staff manually process each HTTP request.
I'm not sure how most people would even be able to hold down a job without internet access these days. I do some farming as a hobby, a job you might not think requires internet access at all. But even doing that would be difficult without it.
This isn't like losing your license where you can resort to walking if you really have to. There is no alternative to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much every browser I've ever used downloads files and saves them in a place on the drive known as the cache. Is saving certain filetypes in a different location really that much different?
A new and promising business model? Someone better alert the RIAA, this must become illegal, stat.
Even if you stay with AT&T, I can't imagine anyone wanting a non-jailbroken iPhone. It's all the third-party applications that makes the iPhone so awesome.
Windows 3.1 established Windows dominance already. Nobody was going to switch to OS/2 at that point.
The only thing I remember about Warp was that you could buy a IBM machine that came with Warp and Windows. But by that time Windows was already established as the de facto standard, so I'm not sure Warp ever had a chance.
As much as an Apple fan as I am, I really don't think you can say MacOS of the time was better than Windows 95. Apple had some advantages in the interface design, but beyond that MacOS was way behind the times and never really did progress beyond that point until OS X was released.
I distinctly remember being in an environment that had both Macs and Windows systems around the time Windows 95 was new and nobody wanted to touch the Macs. The Windows machines were that much better. I believe Apple could have competed with Windows if they tried, but they were too busy with other pursuits.
ActiveRecord doesn't do SQL "correctly" for very good reasons. If you have a reason why you need to use SQL like it was designed, you probably shouldn't be using ActiveRecord at all. However, that does not preclude you from using the rest of the Rails framework.
I disagree. Sure, the configuration may be different, but ultimately, in simplistic terms, no matter what your framework/language you just keep adding processes and servers until you've met your load requirements. There is nothing in Rails that forces you to keep your application on a single server, for example.
If I want to learn how to do something, I want to see code not read about it. I know one issue that stumps a lot of people is how to handle multiple models with one form. The best way to show how to properly handle that situation is to have a sample application in front of you that implements multiple models with one form.
However, these code examples do not belong in the documentation. The documentation is where I go to figure out what I should expect when I pass a certain attribute to a method. Learning how to design an application does not belong here.
I've been working with Rails pretty much from day one, so I've come to learn what works and what doesn't myself. But if I was starting today I'd want to see a full-fledged application that implements some of the less obvious problems so I could see how and why it was implemented that way. Even the best documentation in the world would not be able to explain it as clearly as just sticking the actual code in front of me.
Which is silly because Rails scales exactly the same way every shared nothing web architecture does. If you're application won't scale in Rails, it won't scale if you rewrote it in PHP, or even C for that matter.
The documentation is fine. There are just no good code examples out there for people to learn from. That is what Rails needs.
SQL of any variety is the wrong tool for the job here. He just wants to store a hash. BDB is probably ideal, although there may be some merit to using something akin to CSV or XML if there is a need to exchange the data with other applications.
They're making 10% profit at best. I can give my money to the bank and make 4% without any risk at all. If they aren't doing a whole lot better than what the bank has to offer, there would be no point for them to continuing being in the business of oil.
Safari hooking into the kernel would be pretty silly. However, since WebKit is a control used by many applications it may hook itself deep in the graphics layer. On other UNIXes you'd restart your X server, but on OS X it's just as easy to reboot the whole system at that point because all your applications are going to be killed anyway.
Higher quality software costs exponentially more to create. The market has decided that it wants buggy but cheap software. Personally, I agree with the market. I could shell out $100,000 for a bug free copy of Act!, but I'd rather take my chances with a $100 copy and I'm sure you would too.
It's still upgrade pricing. Just because the content on the DVD is identical is irrelevant. We have no idea how much Apple actually charges for the pre-installed "full" version of OS X, but it's probably more than $129.
When I read it, I assumed there really were rootkits in the wild with those names. Then again, I've never heard of OneCare until now which didn't help.
The boxed copy of OS X is an upgrade because it's impossible, legally speaking, for you to install it on any hardware that didn't already come with the "full" version of OS X. The hardware itself is the check that you have already purchased the "full" version of OS X. Just because Apple handles their upgrades differently than everyone else, doesn't mean it's not an upgrade.
Now, whether or not the "full" version of OS X is more expensive than the upgrade version is unknown to everyone except Apple themselves, but why wouldn't OS X be worth at least as much as Windows?
Of course you don't need to activate it. They already know you bought the "full" version of OS X when you bought your Mac.
For me, OS X on the PC has some appeal for one simple reason: Nobody around here will fix Macs. If my PC breaks I can drop into any one of the numerous local computer shops. When my Powerbook has problems (and it's had a fair number of problems!) I'm looking at six hours on the road.
I like the Apple hardware/software combination and am willing to pay a premium for it, but the difficulty in getting things fixed is a concern to me. One that would be alleviated by using a generic PC.
Perhaps PCs cost 1/2 as much as the Mac does because of the added cost of OS X? The boxed version for $129 is just the upgrade version. Who knows what the "full" version costs. I'm guessing it's in line with what Windows costs; in the $400 range. However, in the case of Windows, Microsoft will give away the OEM version for essentially nothing so that cost isn't passed on to the hardware like it is with the Mac.
Last time I checked it could easily take several months to write and publish a book. In the world of business one needs real-time information that only the internet can provide, else your competitors are going to beat you out every time.
This is the Canadian government we are talking about. The same government that lets you file your GST returns online, but you may only do so between 9AM and 5PM EST. Maybe some day they will invest in some computers to handle the job instead of having their staff manually process each HTTP request.
I'm not sure how most people would even be able to hold down a job without internet access these days. I do some farming as a hobby, a job you might not think requires internet access at all. But even doing that would be difficult without it.
This isn't like losing your license where you can resort to walking if you really have to. There is no alternative to the internet.