Only if the only other major players are Windows 7 and Vista. KDE, too, perhaps (although that's debatable), but then you'd also have to count Gnome as another major player, and Gnome is certainly far more "conservative in appearance", in every possible sense of the phrase, than Mac OS X.
Actually, those predictions came about for entirely different reasons than global warming, namely that hurricanes come in predictable cycles. Unfortunately this time the cycle wasn't predictable enough.
Great idea. You may want to take a look at the economy of The Republic of Ireland, Iceland, Romania and a few others before considering it. (Spoiler: it tends to fail spectacularly.)
One particular collection of facts, the fixture lists of English Premier League games, is copyrighted in the UK but uncopyrightable in the EU under the database directive. The legal status of databases here depends on where 'here' is.
There's no super-geeky criteria in the above comment, and I don't presume that the iPad won't be a success. I'm just ripping into his fraudulent "doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer" argument, a silly apology for Apple's lock-in, which is just as harmful as anything Microsoft does, and far more expensive for the consumer in the long run due to forced obsolescence. It's that kind of lack of honesty I attack, and it's a lack of honesty that's pervasive throughout the Apple evangelist community.
The lock-in is in Apple's interest, and Apple's interest alone. That's a simple fact. It's in no way good for the consumer, and the only consumer who pretends it is, is someone who has far too much invested in the lock-in already.
It's OK with me that you don't like it. It's still a fairly well designed desktop (with some faults remaining), but it's a bit different from the others, so it's not to everyone's liking, and I don't expect everyone to get why things are the way they are. For the most part, it's set up to work pretty well by default, so if you really need to configure everything, you're probably in that group.
More likely PEBCAK. Debian's KDE 4 is fine and a perfectly standard KDE. It's not Gnome, though, so if that's what you want, you're not going to get it.
No, it's just imprecise and poorly thought out wording. Naturally, a "full OS X" with the iPhone GUI wouldn't have both the iPhone GUI and the OS X GUI at the same time. It wouldn't have the OS X specific parts that are replaced in the iPhone OS or have iPhone specific implementations (Safari, Mail.app, etc.).
So let's rephrase: iPhone OS with full, unencumbered Darwin, and only some of the basic and necessary OS X apps that Apple removed for commercial reasons. That would be easily accomplished.
No, I don't assume that "Apple went out of their way to screw the user", I assume they designed this gizmo to make money, not for charity. As it happens, it's designed to lock people to the iTunes platform. I assume -- correctly -- that this is a commercial decision, as neither technical nor UI explanations hold water.
You pretend it's the only way to make for a good user experience. It's not, and you know that perfectly well. So you make up an ideal iPad customer who doesn't exist and make up excuses. You're an apologist and a corporate fanboy.
You're speaking as if multitasking is something completely alien, complex and intrusive, which it isn't. You're speaking as if Apple first and foremost had the user in mind when making every design decision, which they hadn't. You're speaking as if forsaking things you expect is for your own good, which it isn't, but which is, on the other hand, the talk of a religious cultist.
The OS core is already the same (if we are to believe Steve Jobs (which is naïve, I admit) and also a few people with jailbroken phones), and many of the non-iphone parts of OS X are already available, like the BSD subsystem. It's not so much about redesigning the OS as adding the restricted parts back in.
That's all I meant with "full OS X". I wouldn't want PPC or i686 emulation or something fancy as that; hell, I'd even do without 100% source compatibility. I just want the basic tools I expect from Darwin. How hard is that? Not nearly as hard as what Apple have done to restrict people from doing it themselves.
Wrong. The Ipad isn't built for Apple's customers, it's built for Apple.
When you say it "doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer", you're simply being dishonest: it would cost nothing in user experience to allow multitasking or free installation of software. A full OS X with the iPhone GUI would be fantastic, and relatively easily accomplishable. It would come with no extra draw-backs for the user whatsoever. And you know this perfectly well.
But this would cost Apple a lot, in that a user with choice wouldn't be tied to iTunes. The question is: why are you being dishonest? Apple probably doesn't pay you a cent for your work as a freelance advertising agent. And why is this bullshit so prevalent among Apple fanboys? There's a reason why you guys are called a cult: you are one.
Wow, you really have no clue whatsoever how a computer works. "KDE may be plasma based on QT with an OO toolkit"?! You just string along a bunch of brand names and believe you actually said something. Let me translate this into something more human readable for you: "Hurr may be Grargrar based on Blargh with an OO toolkit." Now, the only thing that actually makes sense there is the "with an OO toolkit", which is actually wrong. Qt is an OO toolkit (and much more).
As for KDE not working properly, all I can say is that once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you can prove that you've actually tested it, I won't belive you. Dropped all the decent apps? You mean Kmail, still superior to Mail.app in its KDE4 incarnation? Amarok? Still there. Kate? Nope. Kwrite? No. Konqueror? Wrong. Perhaps you meant Noatun? Well, it's not great, but I guess most people would prefer it to Quicktime Player.
re: reliability: In which cases does the XDND protocol stop working?
re: consistency: Does drag-and-drop work between Windows apps running under Wine on OS X and OS X apps? No? So consistency isn't really there either. You just choose to ignore it.
That's got nothing whatsoever to do with "plug and play" or "object orientation", unless you use your own special ad hoc definition -- which was what I suspected, and the reason why I asked: to show that you don't know what you're talking about.
To further show that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to drag a picture from Firefox into the Gimp (Gimp opens the image) and OpenOffice Writer (Writer opens the image), into Google Chrome (Chrome opens the image), into vim in editing mode (it pastes the link to the image). Anything else you want me to drag & drop? How about an mp3 from Amarok's playlist into Firefox (Firefox plays a song!).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple advertisement: "Informative."
Certainly. And the same goes for mainstream economics.
Only if the only other major players are Windows 7 and Vista. KDE, too, perhaps (although that's debatable), but then you'd also have to count Gnome as another major player, and Gnome is certainly far more "conservative in appearance", in every possible sense of the phrase, than Mac OS X.
If your comment is modded "overrated", it shows that Libertarians are more predictable than a free market economy.
Actually, those predictions came about for entirely different reasons than global warming, namely that hurricanes come in predictable cycles. Unfortunately this time the cycle wasn't predictable enough.
Great idea. You may want to take a look at the economy of The Republic of Ireland, Iceland, Romania and a few others before considering it. (Spoiler: it tends to fail spectacularly.)
It was funnier (and a bit scarier) when I read 'pens' as 'penis'. Took a lot of curiosity for me to click that link.
Oh wow. "BSOD." "FreeBSD" elitist. "Interesting."
One particular collection of facts, the fixture lists of English Premier League games, is copyrighted in the UK but uncopyrightable in the EU under the database directive. The legal status of databases here depends on where 'here' is.
There's no super-geeky criteria in the above comment, and I don't presume that the iPad won't be a success. I'm just ripping into his fraudulent "doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer" argument, a silly apology for Apple's lock-in, which is just as harmful as anything Microsoft does, and far more expensive for the consumer in the long run due to forced obsolescence. It's that kind of lack of honesty I attack, and it's a lack of honesty that's pervasive throughout the Apple evangelist community.
The lock-in is in Apple's interest, and Apple's interest alone. That's a simple fact. It's in no way good for the consumer, and the only consumer who pretends it is, is someone who has far too much invested in the lock-in already.
It's OK with me that you don't like it. It's still a fairly well designed desktop (with some faults remaining), but it's a bit different from the others, so it's not to everyone's liking, and I don't expect everyone to get why things are the way they are. For the most part, it's set up to work pretty well by default, so if you really need to configure everything, you're probably in that group.
More likely PEBCAK. Debian's KDE 4 is fine and a perfectly standard KDE. It's not Gnome, though, so if that's what you want, you're not going to get it.
No, it's just imprecise and poorly thought out wording. Naturally, a "full OS X" with the iPhone GUI wouldn't have both the iPhone GUI and the OS X GUI at the same time. It wouldn't have the OS X specific parts that are replaced in the iPhone OS or have iPhone specific implementations (Safari, Mail.app, etc.).
So let's rephrase: iPhone OS with full, unencumbered Darwin, and only some of the basic and necessary OS X apps that Apple removed for commercial reasons. That would be easily accomplished.
No, I don't assume that "Apple went out of their way to screw the user", I assume they designed this gizmo to make money, not for charity. As it happens, it's designed to lock people to the iTunes platform. I assume -- correctly -- that this is a commercial decision, as neither technical nor UI explanations hold water.
You pretend it's the only way to make for a good user experience. It's not, and you know that perfectly well. So you make up an ideal iPad customer who doesn't exist and make up excuses. You're an apologist and a corporate fanboy.
Why would the BSD subsystem need a UI redesign for touch input?
You're speaking as if multitasking is something completely alien, complex and intrusive, which it isn't. You're speaking as if Apple first and foremost had the user in mind when making every design decision, which they hadn't. You're speaking as if forsaking things you expect is for your own good, which it isn't, but which is, on the other hand, the talk of a religious cultist.
The OS core is already the same (if we are to believe Steve Jobs (which is naïve, I admit) and also a few people with jailbroken phones), and many of the non-iphone parts of OS X are already available, like the BSD subsystem. It's not so much about redesigning the OS as adding the restricted parts back in.
That's all I meant with "full OS X". I wouldn't want PPC or i686 emulation or something fancy as that; hell, I'd even do without 100% source compatibility. I just want the basic tools I expect from Darwin. How hard is that? Not nearly as hard as what Apple have done to restrict people from doing it themselves.
Wrong. The Ipad isn't built for Apple's customers, it's built for Apple.
When you say it "doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer", you're simply being dishonest: it would cost nothing in user experience to allow multitasking or free installation of software. A full OS X with the iPhone GUI would be fantastic, and relatively easily accomplishable. It would come with no extra draw-backs for the user whatsoever. And you know this perfectly well.
But this would cost Apple a lot, in that a user with choice wouldn't be tied to iTunes. The question is: why are you being dishonest? Apple probably doesn't pay you a cent for your work as a freelance advertising agent. And why is this bullshit so prevalent among Apple fanboys? There's a reason why you guys are called a cult: you are one.
It means something to those who care less about Microsoft's failure than they do about free formats' success.
Wow, you really have no clue whatsoever how a computer works. "KDE may be plasma based on QT with an OO toolkit"?! You just string along a bunch of brand names and believe you actually said something. Let me translate this into something more human readable for you: "Hurr may be Grargrar based on Blargh with an OO toolkit." Now, the only thing that actually makes sense there is the "with an OO toolkit", which is actually wrong. Qt is an OO toolkit (and much more).
As for KDE not working properly, all I can say is that once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you can prove that you've actually tested it, I won't belive you. Dropped all the decent apps? You mean Kmail, still superior to Mail.app in its KDE4 incarnation? Amarok? Still there. Kate? Nope. Kwrite? No. Konqueror? Wrong. Perhaps you meant Noatun? Well, it's not great, but I guess most people would prefer it to Quicktime Player.
Oooh, the ancient "it's a hack!" pseudo-argument.
re: reliability: In which cases does the XDND protocol stop working?
re: consistency: Does drag-and-drop work between Windows apps running under Wine on OS X and OS X apps? No? So consistency isn't really there either. You just choose to ignore it.
That's got nothing whatsoever to do with "plug and play" or "object orientation", unless you use your own special ad hoc definition -- which was what I suspected, and the reason why I asked: to show that you don't know what you're talking about.
To further show that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to drag a picture from Firefox into the Gimp (Gimp opens the image) and OpenOffice Writer (Writer opens the image), into Google Chrome (Chrome opens the image), into vim in editing mode (it pastes the link to the image). Anything else you want me to drag & drop? How about an mp3 from Amarok's playlist into Firefox (Firefox plays a song!).
QED: you're full of shit.
So what kind of "object orientation" and "plug and play" does the Mac have that Linux doesn't?
And?
I can't see how you can get rooted by screen except if someone got access to your account and you had a screen session with su root running.