Consider the following gedanken experiment. I don't suggest you try it...
Offer your gamer $1,000,000 if they walk their character to the top of a tower in a 3D world (or similar dangerous situation in any other scenario) and jump off. Really. Create a mental image of walking into gamer's bedroom with a suitcase of cash, plonking it down next to them and saying "jump off, and this $1M is yours, no strings attached". I'd be willing to bet every single person would take the money - not that I have the funds to prove it:-)
Assuming the character is now dead, take your gamer to the top of the empire state building and offer him/her another $1,000,000 if they jump off the building. If they accepted the first $1M but not the second, they can distinguish the difference between self-harm in a game and self-harm in reality. If they can distinguish the difference for themselves, they have no justification for harming others and claiming the game influenced them to do it.
As for why we don't trust adults with CSI, that's just a sad indictment of the science education that people have gained. There are a *lot* of people who trust anything anyone in a white coat says. Sad, but true:-(
Kind of offtopic, mostly because I agree with everything you said, but I've always wondered if higer "resolution" could be achieved by analyzing the data in several frames of footage from a film. I seem to recall one of the probes around Mars does something like this but can't remember for sure.
It's called optic flow, you basically register each pixel in one frame with the corresponding pixel in another (previous or successive) frame. Then you can average out the pixel values and improve the signal-to-noise ratio, so it does make the image look better. It's not a panacea though - you'll get a boost, but not much of one.
The problem is that different frames have different real information as well as different noise levels, and real information in frame 12 (which is confirmed by frames 13,14,15) may introduce errors if combined with frames 9,10,11. So, you only get to use a small window of time, and that rarely gives you a significant increase in image clarity. Think of it as temporal noise rather than spatial noise.
Plus, you don't increase resolution at all, just signal-to-noise ratio of the existing pixels. If the camera can only capture 640x480 pixels, that's all you can get - anything more than that is interpolation.
I guess you missed the footnote in the original post... The (*) was supposed to point you in the general direction...
And, sadly, there *are* a lot of people who will believe anyone in a white coat. It's more of an indictment of science education than anything else - the first thing science ought to teach, is to question.
The problem with CSI is that it's not just the bad guys that believe it...
Consider a jury: 12 people too stupid(*) to get out of jury selection wonder why the scientific evidence is so bad. They compare it with what "scientists" say on CSI with all the flashy graphics that seem so convincing, and conclude that the real evidence is not compelling. Reasonable doubt surfaces and joe bad-guy walks.
One of my father's friends is a reasonably-high-ranking policeman back in the UK, and there is a genuine concern that people's expectations of phorensic evidence is being pushed too high by programs like this.
Here's a use for 'mythbusters' - get them to take a CSI show's flashy effects, and then compare to the real world... Some points:
When you're searching for fingerprints (a computationally-intensive task) you don't put every image up on the screen - you don't even store imagery, you store an encoding of the fingerprint and compare encodings (numbers). In reality it's done by humans, not computers.
You can't zoom-in infinitely, or even much. Why people think crappy security cameras are "better" than their personal digital zooming cameras is beyond me. You can't "clear up" an image when it's zoomed-in, you already have all the data. The best you can do is some thresholding/sharpening/convolution operations...
Results take days or weeks but definitely not minutes.
There are not unlimited manpower resources to throw at every problem.
Cameras cannot see around corners without the aid of a mirror.
The reflection off someone's eyeball is not sufficient information to read a car numberplate.
There is usually more than one place in a city where a given tree type grows.
The city databases are not (a) completely correct, and (b) anywhere near as pervasive as portrayed.
... ad nauseum.
CSI is a fantasy - an enjoyable fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless. Just once it would be nice if their technological approach failed (the database was wrong, the drivers licence pointed them in the wrong direction, etc.) but no, they're perfect. It would be nice if fingerprints were shown to be not 100% accurate as well (it might trigger some debate!)
Simon
(*) I don't really think jurors are all stupid, some of them are true servants of the state, but some of them... sheesh.
Walked in with the marketing man (completely suited, of course). I'm in a ripped T-shirt, jeans and trainers. Go up to the board room - 8 executives and one of them (not the MD) said something sotto voce to his neighbour "look what it's come to, the people we're hiring".
I sat up a little (ok, I was slouching), and stared at him, said "I'm paid for technical excellence, not sartorial elegance". I *really* enjoyed that - right on cue, "heavy" measured voice, and eye-contact all the way. Ok, so I was immature, but by [insert random deity] it was fun:-)
The MD bursts out laughing. We got the contract, and they were still excellent clients when I left the company to start my own. As far as I know, they're still good clients:-)
If you've been talking to a known mass-murderer, don't you think the police ought to be talking to you ? However innocent the reasons, I'd expect the police to show an interest in any connection. At the very least, they'd get more info on what clothes (s)he was wearing, anything they said or did that seemed out of place, etc.
If your neighbours are suspecting you of consorting with people like that, it's time to change neighbours, or stop doing it of course:-) Personally I'd dine out on the experience for the next 2 months, but that's just me...
Maybe the X apps you use work, but the fact remains that large and important parts of Fink and DarwinPorts are broken and don't even install. Both also require lots of compilation, something that is a ridiculous proposition on a $100 laptop (it's a ridiculous proposition even on a Powerbook). The immaturity and incompleteness of Fink and DarwinPorts alone would be more than reason enough not to pick OS X.
Right, so the advantage of this open-source policy is that you can "tinker" to your hearts content, or so we're led to believe. How does "tinkering" with source code not involve compiling ? And if (as it seems) compiling is the raison d'être of this open-source policy, who cares if you're compiling (with gcc) on OS X, or on Redhat. It's still going to take forever.
And I've yet to experience this "large part of darwin-ports" that are broken and don't install. Not got *one* yet...
Because people like you
Oh, I see, people like me. Now it's all clear - you know exactly who I am, what my character is like, what I do, where and how I live my life, what my goals are, and even my dreams. Oh wait, no you don't. So how you can claim "people like you" do things is rather bizarre, don't you think ? Where's your metric ?
tout OS X as the more usable solution, but OS X with X11 apps running on top of it is a bloody mess. It's a mess that UNIX users like me are willing to put up with for some of our machines, but it's not something you can let loose on the world at large... and I've heard this claimed, but still don't see it myself... What's the mess ? Each app has its own window, just like X. Each window has focus, just like X. copy/paste work fine between X and Aqua. I don't get the problem.
If you're asking for the X applications to have the same look-and-feel as Aqua, then you just don't understand X. In terms of display, it's just a bitmapped surface - there are no 'scroll bars' or 'buttons', there are just Xlib primitives. All the widgets in the various X look-and-feel libraries call Xlib to draw, and to replace every widget library would be a monumental task, not to mention bug-prone. If you run X apps, you get an X feel. I have no problem with that, in fact I'd have a problem if they did replace the libraries!
The all-X-apps-as-one-cocoa-app is (as far as I can see) just an X server implemented in user-space rather than being run automatically. If you want it to run automatically, select it in the 'run these automatically' dialogue...
And then you go off on a rant about free Cocoa apps, which I'm going to ignore, because the premise is wrong.
What are these usability-measuring procedures then ? I've never heard of any - probably just ignorance on my part, but I'd be interested to know just how various OS's measure up (not just OS X).
I had a point somewhere in there. Oh yeah, I'd prefer not to be arrested just because I happened to come into casual contact with a criminal.
Unfortunately you seemed to have missed mine, which was that you don't get arrested for having a conversation, no matter whom it was with... The police may come and visit, and ask you what you were talking about (and frankly, if a mass-murderer is speaking to you, it's probably a good idea that they do, even if (s)he is just asking directions), but they're not going to arrest you on the basis of speaking to someone! It requires more than that.
Simon (not living under any rocks, as far as I know...)
... despite the UK's continual attempts to make it easier to incarcerate people without trial, it does require motive, means, and opportunity, not to mention some evidence of a crime, rather than a conversation to get arrested/charged. There is always the option of wrongful arrest, if the police try to take it too far...
In general, though, I'm very disappointed. Christ, I thought geting rid of "lockemup, lockemALLup" Blunkett was a good thing. Looks like we swapped the frying pan for the fire:-(
Nobody is restricting Apple's access. Since the OS is going to be free and open source, Apple has all the information they need for a port of OS X if they choose to do it.
I'm sure you're aware it wasn't Apples' access I was referring to.
I wish it were true, but the "OS X is UNIX plus more" argument just doesn't work out in practice. A lot of stuff in Fink and DarwinPorts is broken and doesn't even install. X11-based GUI apps have an interface that is inconsistent with the rest of OS X. Apple's X11 implementation is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of Aqua (e.g. all X11 apps are treated as a single app by Aqua).
Speaking as someone who uses darwin-ports stuff daily, and who has 30 or so X apps open at the moment, I have to disagree with that.
Why does it matter if all X apps are treated as a single app by Aqua ? If I kill/usr/bin/X on a linux box (which is the process you're talking about, here) it will kill all X applications on a linux box too. I guess I'm not sure what your point is...
As for speed, I've never noticed it being slow. I'll compile xperf and see how that compares to my linux box...
Lots of Mac users have that opinion, but I have yet to see any facts to support such statements
Since it is a subjective matter, I doubt you'll ever see any facts. It does appear to be rather a commonplace opinion though... There is a pervasive effort throughout mac software to try and simplify interfaces, without sacrificing functionality of course.
You can bet that from a financial point of view, a relationship between Apple and the Media Lab would have been far more profitable and better PR than a relationship between RedHat and the Media Lab. Apple would invest more than $2m in advertising alone
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps SJ thought the offer of OS X was enough... And I suspect it's cash they want, not advertising...
You're aware that *all* apple powerbooks are running on G4 processors, yes ? About as fast as a late P3, or very early P4...
Tiger does very well on even G3 processors (~early P3) if you read the comments below from people who have it running on that hardware.
As for unix-based. I (and I suspect the end-users will be with me on this one) frankly don't give a damn if it's a fully-signed-up licence or not. I can type './configure && make && make install' and expect it to work. It has, so far. The differences are so slight it's never been a problem for me - I've never even noticed it...
I'm not sure who's trolling here. I do know you're wrong on a fair few points...
1) I've never modified kernel code myself. But if I wanted to, or had to, I could. With an open-source kernel, you're free to change things on a whim. With a proprietary kernel, even if you have the technical ability, you're screwed.
Your point being... what, exactly ? You *are* aware that the kernel in OS X is open-source, aren't you ? That all the source code is there, available for anyone to hack on ?
2) I don't browse through random source code for fun (though sometimes for profit), but open-source software gives me that warm-and-fuzzy feeling because I prefer the whole community attitude (for the most part) over some monolithic corporation that's more interested in getting me to fork over $100 for their latest app. Others might take a strictly moralistic stance.
Ah, I see, you're *not* aware that it's an open source kernel (google for 'Darwin OS X') at the heart of the mac ? I guess that makes this point moot too...
3) I suppose they could install anything they like. Choice is good.
I can't see how that's an argument in favour/against either. With either solution they can reformat the drive and install whatever they want...
4) Sure, Cocoa is nice. GCC is also nice. wxWidgets is even nicer, and easily portable across both OSes. Preferences vary from person to person, and YMMV.
*cough*, *choke*, *gurgling death rattle*. You *have* to be kidding. I've used WxWindows for cross-platform apps, and Cocoa blows it away! I've been coding for the last 25 years, and the Mac (and I only started using them a year ago!) is by far the best platform I've ever coded on.
Key-Value observing and coding - the ability to treat any class just like a dictionary, instance variables as keys within the dictionary,
bindings - KVO/KVC with transforms and automatic linkage from the UI designer... I saw a demonstrator build an entire web-browser without typing any code!
core-graphics, core-image - have you *seen* quartz composer (C-G, C-I) ?
Core-data, with the fully-integrated UML-like GUI data-model definer ?
The UI tools (Interface builder) are truly excellent on the mac, and Xcode is developing into something really useful.
The debugging tools are excellent (gdb, shark, bigtop, CHUD, objectalloc, etc.)
Finally, the language - objective C is simply gorgeous - all the power of object-orientated coding with precisely 1 syntax addition and ~10 keywords. Stunning in its simplicity and way more powerful than is first apparent because of the runtime binding.
You are also aware the standard compiler is gcc on the mac, right ? I only ask because you didn't seem to know that Darwin was OSS...
5) Silly me, I didn't realize that modern *nix distros were strictly coding environments. And here I've been mixing audio, putting together home movies, editing photos, and doing my daily email/document/browsing/desktop-yada-yada on Linux. Must be a bug.
Er, I don't think there's anything to compare to the iLife suite on Linux. You're aware that people really make entire movies using Macs, right ? Really. The creative tools are second-to-none. And of course, it runs all the stuff that Linux runs because that's all OSS...
6) You misspelled "Mac" as "right".
Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the Mac way works, but I'd not go so far as to label it the 'right' way. I think it's *a* right way.
Last I checked, if someone gives you $2M and an operating system with no costs attached to it, you aren't paying them anything -- ergo "free". If the source i
In which case they have open source equivalents on OS X and you can tinker with those.
The point is that OS X is a unix-based system, shipped with an X implementation AND a load of (closed source) other stuff. All you're doing by not using OS X is removing the 'other stuff'. Look at darwin-ports for the equivalent to apt-get...
The Mac UI is streets ahead of linux and windows in terms of useability (IMHO, but hell, I'm writing this!), it's been designed with thought for how to make things simple, rather than just available. I think it's a shame that they won't get access to it...
My personal opinion is that RH put $2M into the project, and don't want someone else's OS running the show, put real or implied pressure on the project heads, and OS X is turned down... The losers are the end-users, in this case...
Maybe there ought to be a question when you set up your mac - "rate yourself on a scale of 1-10 on how good you are with computers, and we'll adjust the system alerts accordingly"...
I'm not *so* sure about the after-a-while thing though - I'm struggling to remember any time I had to type in the sysadmin password when I wasn't installing software. If I equate that action with installing stuff, and all I've done is put a CD in to play the damn thing, I'd be pretty curious as to why... Maybe that's just cynical old me, though...
[See my journal entry for my previous comments on this]
To summarise: it's impossible to protect against truly clueless users without severely inconveniencing everyone else, but Mac OS X at least lets you know something dodgy is going on (a request for administration rights, just to play a CD, say what ? No *other* CD's needed that!) I guess it helps to have gorms, though...
THM: It's a difference in attitude. It *does* make a difference.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
So, I'm curious - when you make the spelling error in your claim for superior intellect, are you doing it on purpose, being self-mocking, and therefore making an ironic statement within your signature ?
Or did you make a mistake within the claim for superior intellect, thus unwittingly introducing irony to your signature ?
I don't actually care about bad spelling, but like I say, I'm curious which of the two above it was...
"You don't know what 'irony' is, do you Baldrick ?" "'course I do!" "Well, what is it ?" "It's like bronzy, but harder..."
I did Physics at Imperial College, London. Imperial is a part of the Royal College of Science, and, depending on what degree(s) you take, you get various letters to append to your name when you pass your BSc, MSc, PhD etc...
I have a Diploma of Imperial College and I'm an Associate of the Royal College of Science
So, I have a DIC and an ARCS....
Simon.
Re:Churchill was flawed, but who isn't ?
on
Yahoo's Geek Statue
·
· Score: 1
So, you're either a troll or a racist. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on you. End of discussion.
I just wanted to make clear that when I said "stood alone", I was including the commonwealth allies that we had, and excluding those who joined later (the USA, the USSR, and China) as well as the resistance movements in the already-vanquished. There was never a time when we were truly 'alone', and what I originally wrote made it seem that way. My apologies.
I'm only replying to this because it's such an obvious troll, and has been marked "insightful"! Your last sentence beggars belief:
"And thank history for the threat of "evil empires" of socialist Germany and communist Soviets that fought for a more equitable world"
It scares me that there are people who think the systematic and sanctioned extermination of a race of people (the jews in this case, but the specifics don't really matter, the crime is the same) is not evil in every sense and nuance of the word. Germany at the time *was* an evil place to be, no inverted commas are required. More equitable. Right.
As for Churchill, I'm not religious, but there are many quotes in the bible that can be applied to everyday life. The one that applies here is "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Did you ever save the world ? Thought so.
There are many other quotes from Churchill's era that he's been remembered for, of course, the famous
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
... or Lady Aston and Mr Churchill:
"Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your drink" "Madam, if you were my wife I would drink it."
[aside: I wish politicians were more like that these days - politics would be far more interesting!]
Churchill is venerated, not because he was some supernatural, godlike perfect being, but because cometh the hour, cometh the man, and he very definately *was* the man. He understood the deep loathing within the british populace for what was happening just a few hundred miles away, and his determination to stop it matched the will of the people. We couldn't have had a better war-leader. Of course, as soon as the war was over, he was ditched. With all honour, pomp and circumstance, but he wasn't a peacetime PM.
You also write about England as if you've never been there. Sure, there's an upper class (this means "have been rich for a long time" by the way), but these amount to 1% of the population, and the daily lives of most men and women make them irrelevant. America has the same thing - your upper class are your movie stars, TV personalities etc. When your country is more than a few hundred years old, and "old money" has had a chance to establish itself, I dare say the systems will be roughly equivalent.
As for your last points, I have never (ever) even *heard* of anyone taking the word 'common' as an insult apart from on soap operas in the middle of a screaming row, and I grew up in a Northern city. We weren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination - my father worked on the docks, my mother in various office-jobs. I was hardly a poster-boy for a class-warrior, but I studied hard, got into a good (free) school, went to (free) university, and did a (free) doctoral degree. As someone who ought to be railing against the man (according to your model) I think you're just plain wrong. Any medical/dental care I ever needed was free, and I never considered myself 'beneath' anyone. There is no class-distinction in any of the above, and I've never felt myself to be a member of this lower-class of which you speak.
Of course there were always those wealthier than I in the UK, but hell, it's only money. There are people wealthier than I in
If TiVO were open-source, I'd be able to transfer my TiVO recordings to my mac, and play them with Quicktime... Since they're completely encrypted with strong encryption I can't. Strike one.
LiveJournal is a single-task thing, just like 'apache' or 'linux'. It doesn't need any synergy to be useful, or even good. Strike two.
A 'router' is just about as single-minded a task as I can think of. You might as well say 'washing machine' for the embedded cpu logic in them... Strike three. You're out.
Just in case you missed it, I said:
Show me a single open-source project that goes from end-to-end (source to end-user) and gives you a seamless natural way of doing "it" (whatever 'it' is) like the [itunes store][mac or pc][itunes software][ipod device][ipod interface] does.
The point was the integration between various stages of a lengthy process, not the excellence of any one stage within that process - Open Source can (is!) excellent at some things, but the boring stuff tends to get glossed over. Companies make money (a) presenting the glitz and (b) binding it together with the glue. Apple do both (a) and (b) well, which doesn't leave much of a hole in the market...
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the following gedanken experiment. I don't suggest you try it...
:-)
:-(
Offer your gamer $1,000,000 if they walk their character to the top of a tower in a 3D world (or similar dangerous situation in any other scenario) and jump off. Really. Create a mental image of walking into gamer's bedroom with a suitcase of cash, plonking it down next to them and saying "jump off, and this $1M is yours, no strings attached". I'd be willing to bet every single person would take the money - not that I have the funds to prove it
Assuming the character is now dead, take your gamer to the top of the empire state building and offer him/her another $1,000,000 if they jump off the building. If they accepted the first $1M but not the second, they can distinguish the difference between self-harm in a game and self-harm in reality. If they can distinguish the difference for themselves, they have no justification for harming others and claiming the game influenced them to do it.
As for why we don't trust adults with CSI, that's just a sad indictment of the science education that people have gained. There are a *lot* of people who trust anything anyone in a white coat says. Sad, but true
Simon.
It's called optic flow, you basically register each pixel in one frame with the corresponding pixel in another (previous or successive) frame. Then you can average out the pixel values and improve the signal-to-noise ratio, so it does make the image look better. It's not a panacea though - you'll get a boost, but not much of one.
The problem is that different frames have different real information as well as different noise levels, and real information in frame 12 (which is confirmed by frames 13,14,15) may introduce errors if combined with frames 9,10,11. So, you only get to use a small window of time, and that rarely gives you a significant increase in image clarity. Think of it as temporal noise rather than spatial noise.
Plus, you don't increase resolution at all, just signal-to-noise ratio of the existing pixels. If the camera can only capture 640x480 pixels, that's all you can get - anything more than that is interpolation.
Simon.
I guess you missed the footnote in the original post... The (*) was supposed to point you in the general direction...
And, sadly, there *are* a lot of people who will believe anyone in a white coat. It's more of an indictment of science education than anything else - the first thing science ought to teach, is to question.
Simon.
Consider a jury: 12 people too stupid(*) to get out of jury selection wonder why the scientific evidence is so bad. They compare it with what "scientists" say on CSI with all the flashy graphics that seem so convincing, and conclude that the real evidence is not compelling. Reasonable doubt surfaces and joe bad-guy walks.
One of my father's friends is a reasonably-high-ranking policeman back in the UK, and there is a genuine concern that people's expectations of phorensic evidence is being pushed too high by programs like this.
Here's a use for 'mythbusters' - get them to take a CSI show's flashy effects, and then compare to the real world... Some points:
CSI is a fantasy - an enjoyable fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless. Just once it would be nice if their technological approach failed (the database was wrong, the drivers licence pointed them in the wrong direction, etc.) but no, they're perfect. It would be nice if fingerprints were shown to be not 100% accurate as well (it might trigger some debate!)
Simon
(*) I don't really think jurors are all stupid, some of them are true servants of the state, but some of them... sheesh.
A real-life Player of games (no, it's not an affiliate link...). Of course we're missing some of the Culture yet...
I recommend the book, btw, but then most of the 'M' banks (the sci-fi stuff) is pretty damn good...
Simon
Walked in with the marketing man (completely suited, of course). I'm in a ripped T-shirt, jeans and trainers. Go up to the board room - 8 executives and one of them (not the MD) said something sotto voce to his neighbour "look what it's come to, the people we're hiring".
:-)
:-)
I sat up a little (ok, I was slouching), and stared at him, said "I'm paid for technical excellence, not sartorial elegance". I *really* enjoyed that - right on cue, "heavy" measured voice, and eye-contact all the way. Ok, so I was immature, but by [insert random deity] it was fun
The MD bursts out laughing. We got the contract, and they were still excellent clients when I left the company to start my own. As far as I know, they're still good clients
Simon
This just struck me as funny :-)
:-)
If there's any other way of dying (apart from the death one), can someone please tell me! I'd really like to know! No, honestly, I would
ATB,
Simon
If you've been talking to a known mass-murderer, don't you think the police ought to be talking to you ? However innocent the reasons, I'd expect the police to show an interest in any connection. At the very least, they'd get more info on what clothes (s)he was wearing, anything they said or did that seemed out of place, etc.
:-) Personally I'd dine out on the experience for the next 2 months, but that's just me...
If your neighbours are suspecting you of consorting with people like that, it's time to change neighbours, or stop doing it of course
Simon
This is in the UK ? thousands of people ? Can you give me a link ?
Simon
Maybe the X apps you use work, but the fact remains that large and important parts of Fink and DarwinPorts are broken and don't even install. Both also require lots of compilation, something that is a ridiculous proposition on a $100 laptop (it's a ridiculous proposition even on a Powerbook). The immaturity and incompleteness of Fink and DarwinPorts alone would be more than reason enough not to pick OS X.
... and I've heard this claimed, but still don't see it myself... What's the mess ? Each app has its own window, just like X. Each window has focus, just like X. copy/paste work fine between X and Aqua. I don't get the problem.
Right, so the advantage of this open-source policy is that you can "tinker" to your hearts content, or so we're led to believe. How does "tinkering" with source code not involve compiling ? And if (as it seems) compiling is the raison d'être of this open-source policy, who cares if you're compiling (with gcc) on OS X, or on Redhat. It's still going to take forever.
And I've yet to experience this "large part of darwin-ports" that are broken and don't install. Not got *one* yet...
Because people like you
Oh, I see, people like me. Now it's all clear - you know exactly who I am, what my character is like, what I do, where and how I live my life, what my goals are, and even my dreams. Oh wait, no you don't. So how you can claim "people like you" do things is rather bizarre, don't you think ? Where's your metric ?
tout OS X as the more usable solution, but OS X with X11 apps running on top of it is a bloody mess. It's a mess that UNIX users like me are willing to put up with for some of our machines, but it's not something you can let loose on the world at large
If you're asking for the X applications to have the same look-and-feel as Aqua, then you just don't understand X. In terms of display, it's just a bitmapped surface - there are no 'scroll bars' or 'buttons', there are just Xlib primitives. All the widgets in the various X look-and-feel libraries call Xlib to draw, and to replace every widget library would be a monumental task, not to mention bug-prone. If you run X apps, you get an X feel. I have no problem with that, in fact I'd have a problem if they did replace the libraries!
The all-X-apps-as-one-cocoa-app is (as far as I can see) just an X server implemented in user-space rather than being run automatically. If you want it to run automatically, select it in the 'run these automatically' dialogue...
And then you go off on a rant about free Cocoa apps, which I'm going to ignore, because the premise is wrong.
What are these usability-measuring procedures then ? I've never heard of any - probably just ignorance on my part, but I'd be interested to know just how various OS's measure up (not just OS X).
I had a point somewhere in there. Oh yeah, I'd prefer not to be arrested just because I happened to come into casual contact with a criminal.
Unfortunately you seemed to have missed mine, which was that you don't get arrested for having a conversation, no matter whom it was with... The police may come and visit, and ask you what you were talking about (and frankly, if a mass-murderer is speaking to you, it's probably a good idea that they do, even if (s)he is just asking directions), but they're not going to arrest you on the basis of speaking to someone! It requires more than that.
Simon
(not living under any rocks, as far as I know...)
... despite the UK's continual attempts to make it easier to incarcerate people without trial, it does require motive, means, and opportunity, not to mention some evidence of a crime, rather than a conversation to get arrested/charged. There is always the option of wrongful arrest, if the police try to take it too far...
:-(
In general, though, I'm very disappointed. Christ, I thought geting rid of "lockemup, lockemALLup" Blunkett was a good thing. Looks like we swapped the frying pan for the fire
Simon
Nobody is restricting Apple's access. Since the OS is going to be free and open source, Apple has all the information they need for a port of OS X if they choose to do it.
/usr/bin/X on a linux box (which is the process you're talking about, here) it will kill all X applications on a linux box too. I guess I'm not sure what your point is...
I'm sure you're aware it wasn't Apples' access I was referring to.
I wish it were true, but the "OS X is UNIX plus more" argument just doesn't work out in practice. A lot of stuff in Fink and DarwinPorts is broken and doesn't even install. X11-based GUI apps have an interface that is inconsistent with the rest of OS X. Apple's X11 implementation is slow and poorly integrated with the rest of Aqua (e.g. all X11 apps are treated as a single app by Aqua).
Speaking as someone who uses darwin-ports stuff daily, and who has 30 or so X apps open at the moment, I have to disagree with that.
Why does it matter if all X apps are treated as a single app by Aqua ? If I kill
As for speed, I've never noticed it being slow. I'll compile xperf and see how that compares to my linux box...
Lots of Mac users have that opinion, but I have yet to see any facts to support such statements
Since it is a subjective matter, I doubt you'll ever see any facts. It does appear to be rather a commonplace opinion though... There is a pervasive effort throughout mac software to try and simplify interfaces, without sacrificing functionality of course.
You can bet that from a financial point of view, a relationship between Apple and the Media Lab would have been far more profitable and better PR than a relationship between RedHat and the Media Lab. Apple would invest more than $2m in advertising alone
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps SJ thought the offer of OS X was enough... And I suspect it's cash they want, not advertising...
Simon
You're aware that *all* apple powerbooks are running on G4 processors, yes ? About as fast as a late P3, or very early P4...
Tiger does very well on even G3 processors (~early P3) if you read the comments below from people who have it running on that hardware.
As for unix-based. I (and I suspect the end-users will be with me on this one) frankly don't give a damn if it's a fully-signed-up licence or not. I can type './configure && make && make install' and expect it to work. It has, so far. The differences are so slight it's never been a problem for me - I've never even noticed it...
Simon
I'm not sure who's trolling here. I do know you're wrong on a fair few points...
Your point being ... what, exactly ? You *are* aware that the kernel in OS X is open-source, aren't you ? That all the source code is there, available for anyone to hack on ?
Ah, I see, you're *not* aware that it's an open source kernel (google for 'Darwin OS X') at the heart of the mac ? I guess that makes this point moot too...
I can't see how that's an argument in favour/against either. With either solution they can reformat the drive and install whatever they want ...
*cough*, *choke*, *gurgling death rattle*. You *have* to be kidding. I've used WxWindows for cross-platform apps, and Cocoa blows it away! I've been coding for the last 25 years, and the Mac (and I only started using them a year ago!) is by far the best platform I've ever coded on.
You are also aware the standard compiler is gcc on the mac, right ? I only ask because you didn't seem to know that Darwin was OSS...
Er, I don't think there's anything to compare to the iLife suite on Linux. You're aware that people really make entire movies using Macs, right ? Really. The creative tools are second-to-none. And of course, it runs all the stuff that Linux runs because that's all OSS...
Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the Mac way works, but I'd not go so far as to label it the 'right' way. I think it's *a* right way.
In which case they have open source equivalents on OS X and you can tinker with those.
The point is that OS X is a unix-based system, shipped with an X implementation AND a load of (closed source) other stuff. All you're doing by not using OS X is removing the 'other stuff'. Look at darwin-ports for the equivalent to apt-get...
The Mac UI is streets ahead of linux and windows in terms of useability (IMHO, but hell, I'm writing this!), it's been designed with thought for how to make things simple, rather than just available. I think it's a shame that they won't get access to it...
My personal opinion is that RH put $2M into the project, and don't want someone else's OS running the show, put real or implied pressure on the project heads, and OS X is turned down... The losers are the end-users, in this case...
Simon
Is this a reference to Diebold ? [confused]...
Simon
Maybe there ought to be a question when you set up your mac - "rate yourself on a scale of 1-10 on how good you are with computers, and we'll adjust the system alerts accordingly"...
I'm not *so* sure about the after-a-while thing though - I'm struggling to remember any time I had to type in the sysadmin password when I wasn't installing software. If I equate that action with installing stuff, and all I've done is put a CD in to play the damn thing, I'd be pretty curious as to why... Maybe that's just cynical old me, though...
Simon
[See my journal entry for my previous comments on this]
To summarise: it's impossible to protect against truly clueless users without severely inconveniencing everyone else, but Mac OS X at least lets you know something dodgy is going on (a request for administration rights, just to play a CD, say what ? No *other* CD's needed that!) I guess it helps to have gorms, though...
THM: It's a difference in attitude. It *does* make a difference.
Simon
Or did you make a mistake within the claim for superior intellect, thus unwittingly introducing irony to your signature ?
I don't actually care about bad spelling, but like I say, I'm curious which of the two above it was...
"You don't know what 'irony' is, do you Baldrick ?"
"'course I do!"
"Well, what is it ?"
"It's like bronzy, but harder..."
Simon.
I did Physics at Imperial College, London. Imperial is a part of the Royal College of Science, and, depending on what degree(s) you take, you get various letters to append to your name when you pass your BSc, MSc, PhD etc...
....
I have a Diploma of Imperial College and I'm an Associate of the Royal College of Science
So, I have a DIC and an ARCS
Simon.
So, you're either a troll or a racist. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on you. End of discussion.
Simon.
I just wanted to make clear that when I said "stood alone", I was including the commonwealth allies that we had, and excluding those who joined later (the USA, the USSR, and China) as well as the resistance movements in the already-vanquished. There was never a time when we were truly 'alone', and what I originally wrote made it seem that way. My apologies.
Simon
I'm only replying to this because it's such an obvious troll, and has been marked "insightful"! Your last sentence beggars belief:
It scares me that there are people who think the systematic and sanctioned extermination of a race of people (the jews in this case, but the specifics don't really matter, the crime is the same) is not evil in every sense and nuance of the word. Germany at the time *was* an evil place to be, no inverted commas are required. More equitable. Right.
As for Churchill, I'm not religious, but there are many quotes in the bible that can be applied to everyday life. The one that applies here is "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Did you ever save the world ? Thought so.
There are many other quotes from Churchill's era that he's been remembered for, of course, the famous
[aside: I wish politicians were more like that these days - politics would be far more interesting!]
Churchill is venerated, not because he was some supernatural, godlike perfect being, but because cometh the hour, cometh the man, and he very definately *was* the man. He understood the deep loathing within the british populace for what was happening just a few hundred miles away, and his determination to stop it matched the will of the people. We couldn't have had a better war-leader. Of course, as soon as the war was over, he was ditched. With all honour, pomp and circumstance, but he wasn't a peacetime PM.
You also write about England as if you've never been there. Sure, there's an upper class (this means "have been rich for a long time" by the way), but these amount to 1% of the population, and the daily lives of most men and women make them irrelevant. America has the same thing - your upper class are your movie stars, TV personalities etc. When your country is more than a few hundred years old, and "old money" has had a chance to establish itself, I dare say the systems will be roughly equivalent.
As for your last points, I have never (ever) even *heard* of anyone taking the word 'common' as an insult apart from on soap operas in the middle of a screaming row, and I grew up in a Northern city. We weren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination - my father worked on the docks, my mother in various office-jobs. I was hardly a poster-boy for a class-warrior, but I studied hard, got into a good (free) school, went to (free) university, and did a (free) doctoral degree. As someone who ought to be railing against the man (according to your model) I think you're just plain wrong. Any medical/dental care I ever needed was free, and I never considered myself 'beneath' anyone. There is no class-distinction in any of the above, and I've never felt myself to be a member of this lower-class of which you speak.
Of course there were always those wealthier than I in the UK, but hell, it's only money. There are people wealthier than I in
LiveJournal is a single-task thing, just like 'apache' or 'linux'. It doesn't need any synergy to be useful, or even good. Strike two.
A 'router' is just about as single-minded a task as I can think of. You might as well say 'washing machine' for the embedded cpu logic in them... Strike three. You're out.
Just in case you missed it, I said:
The point was the integration between various stages of a lengthy process, not the excellence of any one stage within that process - Open Source can (is!) excellent at some things, but the boring stuff tends to get glossed over. Companies make money (a) presenting the glitz and (b) binding it together with the glue. Apple do both (a) and (b) well, which doesn't leave much of a hole in the market...
Simon