No, young and fashionable people only look like they get to have sex all the time, in reality they're just spending all their time trying to look fashionable. Fashion == advertising.
There is one fundamental difference between reasonable people and Mac fanboys: when you criticise something reasonable people enjoy, they listen to you and either accept or reject your arguments, and if the latter, they will show you their counter-arguments. Mac fanboys will say: hush, if you don't like it, don't buy it. And they will point to Microsoft, hoping to rather unite people against a common enemy.
Then they will go on and say you're free to chose to buy from another vendor if you don't like Apple's DRM, using freemarket memetics to draw attention away from the giant elephant in the room: that buying into Apple's DRM locks you to Apple's platform for as long as you want to access the DRM-encumbered content. Free? As free as in jail. As I said, you're a bunch of dishonest pricks.
Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't suddenly make Apple advertise their stuff to grandmothers. It's designed for young, fashionable gadget freaks who hang out on Twitter all day long and want something more portable to help the tweet from the sofa. If your aunt or mother wants easy sharing of photos, she obviously would prefer something with easy access to an USB port or a built-in sd card reader, i.e. not an iPad. Someone (most likely you) has been selling her a device she doesn't need.
And speaking of "mixed motives": you don't need a walled garden to remove the bullshit from life. At least not a walled garden that's also a prison. So yes, you're intentionally wrong, and an Apple apologist.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with it. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that's being said? Here's a brief refresher: Lock-in, crippleware, no multitasking, iTunes.
And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.
[1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer); that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in); that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad). All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.
This is just sooo utter bullshit. The iPad is marketed to college age internet addicts, not to their parents. It's for people who want to lie on their couch and tweet about lying on their coach tweeting. Their grandparents, who may want to use this new-fangled internet banking they've heard so much about, should perhaps buy something which actually supports internet banking -- often dependent on Java.
The iPad isn't meant for non-geeks, and doesn't suit them either. It's meant for fashionable gadget-freaks.
Oh, the old "Apple's interface is magically better" pseudo-argument. Hey, if there was any truth to it, Apple users would be more productive and thus more in demand. Corporations that standardise on the Apple platform would perform better than their competition. The only such company I know of is, well, Apple. Since the supposed superiority of the Apple UI has no measurable real-world impact, we can also suppose that the said superiority does not exist in the real world, or at least is greatly exaggerated.
Also I've never claimed that Apple is "about feature laundry lists", so why counter that argument? I'd say they are about making money, which is true, and which is what they do, and do exceptionally well. The obvious commercial choice of not allowing tethering, whose actual, real-world function is to leech money from their customers, can't be explained away by "OMG u just don't get it: it's an interface that gets out of your way and lets you perform".
Thirdly, I couldn't care less about which product you choose to buy. Just stop advertising it all the time.
Oh, please. This isn't done to make things "simple", it's done to make you pay more. That's all there is to it, you're just making excuses. Ever wondered why you Mac Fanboys are so despised? Perhaps you wouldn't be if you didn't feel the need to do ridiculous PR exercises to save Apple's image all the time. They're not working for your best interest, so you should feel no obligation to work for them.
Only one of your points have any merit at all. Distro? Sound? Try Quake 3, released 10 years ago for no distro in particular, supporting OSS sound. It still works today, on a current 64 bit AMD system using ALSA, since ALSA has OSS support. Installation of drivers isn't the game publisher's responsibility, just like under Windows. Legality of codecs? You can legally license codecs under any OS, you just have to pay for them, or use one of the free codecs. Non-issues, all of them. What made you come up with this nonsense?
The lack of a market is the only issue here, and it's a good enough reason not to port games to Linux: it's a waste of time and effort, for very little returns.
The same can be done with bluetooth as well. I don't know about the security (probably poor), but it's certainly possible to use my ancient Sony-Ericsson mobile phone to lock and unlock eg an X session under Linux, by proximity. If a car runs Linux, then... (it would never crash, but you'd have to assemble it yourself from bit parts from all over the web, using mostly outdated information, and it would only run on three year old roads -- but at least you would be able to unlock it with your phone).
If Valve were to port the Orange Box or Portal 2 to Mac, they would have the installed base of practically every Mac sold since (let's see... ) October 2008 capable of playing the game, with the Geforce 9400M being poor by modern standards but good enough for Source. That's a lot of computers that are otherwise starved for decent games. I can think of worse business decisions.
Oh, how cute. Whiny Mac fanboy confuses his own personal opinion with reality. Outside of your little bubble, the reality distortion field doesn't work so well: Windows is a huge success, and it works well most of the time.
Why should I? Your "point" is irrelevant: if your neighbours were to be allowed to micromanage your behaviour, it would obviously have a detrimental effect on your quality of life, hence also the value of your property, as no one would want to live there. There's something to be said for balance, i.e. that your rights and responsibilities are balanced against the rights and responsibilities of other people. Somehow, this is impossible to understand for the Slashbot assburger/Libertarian brigade. That's how you're such a bunch of morons: there's either one extreme or the other. You've just chosen the one you fear the least.
That may be true for a geek who never leaves his basement, but for normal people who actually use their garden (at least in the summer), an eyesore in the neighborhood will in fact harm the garden's use value. And that's actually the reason why it will impact the resale value as well.
Of course, the very idea that one's actions actually have consequences for other people runs contrary to Libertarian idiocy^H^H^H^H^H^H thinking, so you might be better off to discount that little nugget of reality to uphold your illusion of consistent thought.
That would only be a point if he actually protested people simply photographing the memorial. This is about the creation of derivative works for commercial purposes.
What you're saying is that if a rock band does a free concert in a public park, they have given away the rights to their work. That's Slashbot thinking: the philosophy of consumers who never produce anything worth more than a +5, "interesting".
It's because the question is loaded with a popular Slashbot viewpoint. Most moderators are idiots, most Slashbots are pirates. They think they're entitled to full ownership of other people's work.
As he felt the need to mention the phone's brand name four fucking times in that short advertisement^W "story", he clearly cares more about that than about those other things which were only mentioned once.
You mean you can't find it because this shows Linux ahead of FreeBSD (for reliability)? Or this, where several different Linux distros beat FreeBSD soundly in most benchmarks?
Sorry, but your nonsense about FreeBSD performing better than Linux is just that: nonsense. In some cases it does, in other cases it doesn't. Use the tool you think suits you best (and there are plenty of reasons to prefer BSD), but claims that FreeBSD generally performs "better" is just delusional fanboy bullshit. It's still a good, clean Unix with excellent performance.
Slashdot Mirror
No, young and fashionable people only look like they get to have sex all the time, in reality they're just spending all their time trying to look fashionable. Fashion == advertising.
There is one fundamental difference between reasonable people and Mac fanboys: when you criticise something reasonable people enjoy, they listen to you and either accept or reject your arguments, and if the latter, they will show you their counter-arguments. Mac fanboys will say: hush, if you don't like it, don't buy it. And they will point to Microsoft, hoping to rather unite people against a common enemy.
Then they will go on and say you're free to chose to buy from another vendor if you don't like Apple's DRM, using freemarket memetics to draw attention away from the giant elephant in the room: that buying into Apple's DRM locks you to Apple's platform for as long as you want to access the DRM-encumbered content. Free? As free as in jail. As I said, you're a bunch of dishonest pricks.
Anecdotal "evidence" doesn't suddenly make Apple advertise their stuff to grandmothers. It's designed for young, fashionable gadget freaks who hang out on Twitter all day long and want something more portable to help the tweet from the sofa. If your aunt or mother wants easy sharing of photos, she obviously would prefer something with easy access to an USB port or a built-in sd card reader, i.e. not an iPad. Someone (most likely you) has been selling her a device she doesn't need.
And speaking of "mixed motives": you don't need a walled garden to remove the bullshit from life. At least not a walled garden that's also a prison. So yes, you're intentionally wrong, and an Apple apologist.
Wow, the fact that your "comment" is "insightful" just shows how low the bar is set for Apple fanboys.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with it. Are you intentionally ignoring everything that's being said? Here's a brief refresher: Lock-in, crippleware, no multitasking, iTunes.
And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.
[1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer); that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in); that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad). All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.
This is just sooo utter bullshit. The iPad is marketed to college age internet addicts, not to their parents. It's for people who want to lie on their couch and tweet about lying on their coach tweeting. Their grandparents, who may want to use this new-fangled internet banking they've heard so much about, should perhaps buy something which actually supports internet banking -- often dependent on Java.
The iPad isn't meant for non-geeks, and doesn't suit them either. It's meant for fashionable gadget-freaks.
One freedom is the right to bitch and moan about things you don't like, in hope that things will change. It would be stupid not to use that freedom.
Certainly, but the claim that it's done to make it simple is still a blatant lie.
Oh, the old "Apple's interface is magically better" pseudo-argument. Hey, if there was any truth to it, Apple users would be more productive and thus more in demand. Corporations that standardise on the Apple platform would perform better than their competition. The only such company I know of is, well, Apple. Since the supposed superiority of the Apple UI has no measurable real-world impact, we can also suppose that the said superiority does not exist in the real world, or at least is greatly exaggerated.
Also I've never claimed that Apple is "about feature laundry lists", so why counter that argument? I'd say they are about making money, which is true, and which is what they do, and do exceptionally well. The obvious commercial choice of not allowing tethering, whose actual, real-world function is to leech money from their customers, can't be explained away by "OMG u just don't get it: it's an interface that gets out of your way and lets you perform".
Thirdly, I couldn't care less about which product you choose to buy. Just stop advertising it all the time.
Oh, please. This isn't done to make things "simple", it's done to make you pay more. That's all there is to it, you're just making excuses. Ever wondered why you Mac Fanboys are so despised? Perhaps you wouldn't be if you didn't feel the need to do ridiculous PR exercises to save Apple's image all the time. They're not working for your best interest, so you should feel no obligation to work for them.
Only one of your points have any merit at all. Distro? Sound? Try Quake 3, released 10 years ago for no distro in particular, supporting OSS sound. It still works today, on a current 64 bit AMD system using ALSA, since ALSA has OSS support. Installation of drivers isn't the game publisher's responsibility, just like under Windows. Legality of codecs? You can legally license codecs under any OS, you just have to pay for them, or use one of the free codecs. Non-issues, all of them. What made you come up with this nonsense?
The lack of a market is the only issue here, and it's a good enough reason not to port games to Linux: it's a waste of time and effort, for very little returns.
The same can be done with bluetooth as well. I don't know about the security (probably poor), but it's certainly possible to use my ancient Sony-Ericsson mobile phone to lock and unlock eg an X session under Linux, by proximity. If a car runs Linux, then ... (it would never crash, but you'd have to assemble it yourself from bit parts from all over the web, using mostly outdated information, and it would only run on three year old roads -- but at least you would be able to unlock it with your phone).
If Valve were to port the Orange Box or Portal 2 to Mac, they would have the installed base of practically every Mac sold since (let's see ... ) October 2008 capable of playing the game, with the Geforce 9400M being poor by modern standards but good enough for Source. That's a lot of computers that are otherwise starved for decent games. I can think of worse business decisions.
Oh, how cute. Whiny Mac fanboy confuses his own personal opinion with reality. Outside of your little bubble, the reality distortion field doesn't work so well: Windows is a huge success, and it works well most of the time.
They do. They just don't know it yet.
Why should I? Your "point" is irrelevant: if your neighbours were to be allowed to micromanage your behaviour, it would obviously have a detrimental effect on your quality of life, hence also the value of your property, as no one would want to live there. There's something to be said for balance, i.e. that your rights and responsibilities are balanced against the rights and responsibilities of other people. Somehow, this is impossible to understand for the Slashbot assburger/Libertarian brigade. That's how you're such a bunch of morons: there's either one extreme or the other. You've just chosen the one you fear the least.
No, the problem with "my" philosophy is that it's a strawman you invented yourself.
That may be true for a geek who never leaves his basement, but for normal people who actually use their garden (at least in the summer), an eyesore in the neighborhood will in fact harm the garden's use value. And that's actually the reason why it will impact the resale value as well.
Of course, the very idea that one's actions actually have consequences for other people runs contrary to Libertarian idiocy^H^H^H^H^H^H thinking, so you might be better off to discount that little nugget of reality to uphold your illusion of consistent thought.
Wrong.
That would only be a point if he actually protested people simply photographing the memorial. This is about the creation of derivative works for commercial purposes.
What you're saying is that if a rock band does a free concert in a public park, they have given away the rights to their work. That's Slashbot thinking: the philosophy of consumers who never produce anything worth more than a +5, "interesting".
It's because the question is loaded with a popular Slashbot viewpoint. Most moderators are idiots, most Slashbots are pirates. They think they're entitled to full ownership of other people's work.
Right click on the game in your games list, choose "display CD key" or something similar. It's not that hard.
As he felt the need to mention the phone's brand name four fucking times in that short advertisement^W "story", he clearly cares more about that than about those other things which were only mentioned once.
You mean you can't find it because this shows Linux ahead of FreeBSD (for reliability)? Or this, where several different Linux distros beat FreeBSD soundly in most benchmarks?
Sorry, but your nonsense about FreeBSD performing better than Linux is just that: nonsense. In some cases it does, in other cases it doesn't. Use the tool you think suits you best (and there are plenty of reasons to prefer BSD), but claims that FreeBSD generally performs "better" is just delusional fanboy bullshit. It's still a good, clean Unix with excellent performance.