iPhone is two products (3GS and 4), and the category also counts the iPod Touch, which sells more units than the iPhone.
Certainly a large category for Apple, but most of it is driven by classic iPod users migrating to the iPod Touch, which is a pretty safe market from Android. It's not really the situation you imply.
And Windows has "Administrator" - what's the difference?
The difference is the type of people who seem to consider administrator or root a "feature" are calling an invisible tool that checks code against code signing and profiles... well... things other than a feature.
If Apple was suggesting everyone go out and pick up a copy of Nortons at their own cost to fix this, I'd be crying foul. But they fixed this at an operating system level quietly and transparently.
Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?
Because the user experience hasn't changed. The user neither notices the viruses, or the antivirus.
To a user, nothing has changed since before MacDefender.
Mac OS X and Linux have a root user that protects the system against rogue processes causing too much damage. Do we call that a fault in the system because it has to exist, or do we call that a solution?
No system is immune to trojans. Especially when users hand the trojan their root password, like what was done with MacDefender.
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."
Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.
Apple's security update include a new daily malware definitions update. So this is hardly the easy defeat that the description is hinting at. More like the beginning of a long drawn out war...
Historically Microsoft's biggest problem is they feel Windows is the solution to every problem, which has started to not work so well (the worst examples being Windows Tablet Edition and Project Origami, with the later absolutely blowing up in Microsoft's face, ever seen an Origami device in the wild?). It's the same old Windows running on a new processor. If "innovative" is "we ported to ARM" then Microsoft is not going to win this battle. And I don't feel as if Microsoft running the same operating system on a different chip is them joining the battle at all, just make the same old mistakes.
"But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first."
It never appeared in Rhapsody, which was supposed to be the shipping version of OS X. One big reason why Rhapsody never shipped was because Adobe reportedly refused to support it. Apple had to go back to the drawing board, and Mac OS X was born from Rhapsody. So to say that Carbon was always in OS X is a bit disingenuous. In fact, the reason it wasn't in OS X Server 1.0 was because OS X Server 1.0 was basically just a build of Rhapsody...
"I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor."
Apple could have been better at communicating, but there was frequent noise and worry about Carbon being dropped in the developer community before that point. Carbon, at 10.0 was definitely not at parity with Cocoa and was missing a lot of features.
"...stomping on backwards compatibility in ways that upset important partners(Yo Adobe, 64 bit carbon is dead, we didn't bother to tell you until the last second; because Cocoa is just better.)"
First, this isn't an example of backwards compatibility. 32 bit Carbon has continued to live on just fine. 10.6 still is fully backwards with 32 bit Carbon. 64 bit Carbon was a new API that Apple canceled (and 64 bit Carbon itself wasn't even fully api compliant against 32 bit Carbon.)
Second, Cocoa had been pushed as the best solution for a long time. I was at the conference where 32 bit Carbon was canned, and the only people in the room that seemed surprised were Adobe.
Mac OS X wasn't even originally supposed to have Carbon. The only reason it ever did was because Adobe pitched a fit and refused to port to Cocoa, and they were important enough to the future of the Mac that they could get Carbon into OS X. It was always supposed to be a band aid that kept Adobe happy while they ported to Cocoa, except that Adobe never actually started the "porting to Cocoa" part, and Apple got tired of maintaining an operating system component who's primary purpose was keeping Adobe's old code working.
"If i come to your house for dinner, bought a covered dish and then you hide the utensils on me, it would be a more accurate analogy."
It's like selling you sandwich but not giving you utensils. If you want to eat your sandwich with a fork, I'm not going to stop you. But I'm not going to go out of my way to make my sandwiches fork friendly. This doesn't mean I'm actively trying to stop you from eating your sandwiches with a fork.
"To me, until it doesn't require any 'tricks' to make it happen and becomes a simple 'press this button at your own risk' function they are actively trying to prevent it."
Huh? This is horrible logic.
If I don't bring you your dinner tonight, am I actively trying to stop you from eating dinner?
"Remember too, that with each OS release they fix the holes that were exploited in the previous to accomplish it, so again i say they are making an effort."
Yes, because bugs that allow you to inject code on a device are security bugs. Would you rather Apple leave these issues open so that blackhats can use them as well?
"Umm, they actively try to prevent jail breaking, so yes they are trying to stop you. They also have the 'right' to do this with their products. I also never said about it being illegal for me to do what i wanted with my device."
How so? I haven't seen them actively try to prevent jailbreaking since jailbreaking was declared legal under US law.
They won't support a jailbroken phone, either through hardware support or the update system, which is exactly what every other phone maker does. This is not Apple actively trying to stop jailbreaking.
Apple lost share when they began licensing Mac OS. Sure, they had made a lot of mistakes before that. But there is a good argument one of the best strengths of Mac OS was hardware lockdown which enabled more stable computing.
As soon as Apple stopped licensing Mac OS they started becoming profitable again.
Apple isn't stopping you from using it however you want. You can do whatever you want with it.
What you are asking for is Apple to help you do whatever you want to do, which I don't think even the most nerdy of nerds would say Apple has to do. It is totally legal for you to jailbreak it and load whatever you want on there.
Apple didn't threaten to sue Toyota, they just asked them to stop distributing the theme, which from a business standpoint is totally reasonable. Toyota also could have said no. Nothing fancy going on here.
Neither link meets definition of a DDoS attack. By definition, a DDoS attack is a third party forcing you to deny service by overloading your server. That's entirely different than an organization voluntarily deciding to not do business with a group.
Googling different combinations of "ambassador", "spying" and other words finds more than a dozen cases of US, Soviet, and EU ambassadors found to be doing espionage.
I'm not sure why this is at all surprising. Embassies are frequently used as hubs for spy rings. That's why countries are so picky about letting them in. Again, I'd post links, but you could enter the term "embassy spies" into Google, and it would give you links, from all sorts of different nations.
I would be very surprised if say, the Chinese, weren't using their embassies to collect similar kinds of data, like biometrics.
"Hillary doing her job properly?!? Our diplomats are not spies. Forcing them to do spies' work compromises their ability to do diplomatic work. There is a reason we have diplomats in the State Department and spies in separate agencies like the CIA and the NSA."
This is silly. Diplomats since the beginning of time have always acted as part time spies. Every single country in the world does this. We either play the same game, or we stick our heads in the sand.
The problem with these leaks is naive idealists who think this is some new-fangeled government corruption, when really all of this is widely known in the intelligence community, and has been done for years by everyone.
So your point is... if the government didn't create a plan in line with the concepts of net neutrality, they wouldn't be following net neutrality? The logic is sound, I suppose. But it's a dumb argument. If the plan gave the government power to regulate internet content, then it wouldn't be net neutrality in the first place, as the entire point of net neutrality is that no one, not even the government, can restrict content.
I'm for net neutrality. If the government creates a plan that's not net neutrality, then I won't be for it. Simple as that.
"And part of that regulation would be not providing access to a designated list of websites. Because they could."
It could also state that everybody gets a free taco on Mondays. Doesn't change that neither concept is part of net neutrality, and any legislation that includes such things would not be net neutrality (even if the government claimed it was.)
The government wouldn't have anything to do with internet enforcement. It would only be tasked with preventing other companies from regulating traffic. Net neutrality, at least in the form proposed, wouldn't at all give the government the ability to do this sort of thing.
It's not very well known, but Apple will actually do on site repairs. Seriously, look in your AppleCare terms, it's in there. I've heard of people who know about it getting on site repairs with great success. They also allow you to mail in your repairs without going to an Apple Store.
Optionally, if you do have an on site IT department, you can get certified in doing your own repairs. Apple will send you a new part, you install, send back the old part.
That said, unless the office is already using Macs, don't buy Macs. I've had more trouble with converting offices only to have them get mad because a button in Excel moved 20 pixels to the right and suddenly their "mouse memory" doesn't work anymore. People like sameness, they may think switching to Macs is a good idea on paper, but make sure they really know what they're going into. This also applies to Linux conversions. And if it goes wrong, they will blame you, no matter how trivial the issues are.
Slashdot Mirror
iPhone is two products (3GS and 4), and the category also counts the iPod Touch, which sells more units than the iPhone.
Certainly a large category for Apple, but most of it is driven by classic iPod users migrating to the iPod Touch, which is a pretty safe market from Android. It's not really the situation you imply.
And Windows has "Administrator" - what's the difference?
The difference is the type of people who seem to consider administrator or root a "feature" are calling an invisible tool that checks code against code signing and profiles... well... things other than a feature.
If Apple was suggesting everyone go out and pick up a copy of Nortons at their own cost to fix this, I'd be crying foul. But they fixed this at an operating system level quietly and transparently.
Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?
Because the user experience hasn't changed. The user neither notices the viruses, or the antivirus.
To a user, nothing has changed since before MacDefender.
Mac OS X and Linux have a root user that protects the system against rogue processes causing too much damage. Do we call that a fault in the system because it has to exist, or do we call that a solution?
No system is immune to trojans. Especially when users hand the trojan their root password, like what was done with MacDefender.
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."
Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.
Apple's security update include a new daily malware definitions update. So this is hardly the easy defeat that the description is hinting at. More like the beginning of a long drawn out war...
I believe 10.7 is supposed to be adding the full disk encryption.
Not much to do about the docks, but some companies make side docks.
If you have AppleCare, Apple will do onsite service. You have to be in a city with technicians, though.
http://www.apple.com/support/products/premium/onsite.html
"I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login."
Hmmm? Console login still works. At least on Leopard and Snow Leopard.
Historically Microsoft's biggest problem is they feel Windows is the solution to every problem, which has started to not work so well (the worst examples being Windows Tablet Edition and Project Origami, with the later absolutely blowing up in Microsoft's face, ever seen an Origami device in the wild?). It's the same old Windows running on a new processor. If "innovative" is "we ported to ARM" then Microsoft is not going to win this battle. And I don't feel as if Microsoft running the same operating system on a different chip is them joining the battle at all, just make the same old mistakes.
"But the only glimmer of evidence that Carbon wasn't meant to be included in OS X was that it didn't appear in OS X Server (1.0), which was never meant to be a replacement for classic MacOS, and was never marketed as such. Carbon was always part of Apple's strategy to not bleed developers (besides just Adobe; Microsoft being another major one, but hundreds of others as well) in its second major technology transition, the same way that Fat Binaries were part of Apple's strategy in the first."
It never appeared in Rhapsody, which was supposed to be the shipping version of OS X. One big reason why Rhapsody never shipped was because Adobe reportedly refused to support it. Apple had to go back to the drawing board, and Mac OS X was born from Rhapsody. So to say that Carbon was always in OS X is a bit disingenuous. In fact, the reason it wasn't in OS X Server 1.0 was because OS X Server 1.0 was basically just a build of Rhapsody...
"I wouldn't say Adobe had any reason to believe they would need to port to Cocoa so abruptly until just before 10.5 was released. Apple did a poor job communicating with developers on the future of OS X's APIs, and that kind of an abrupt API change would cause severe gnashing of teeth from any other vendor."
Apple could have been better at communicating, but there was frequent noise and worry about Carbon being dropped in the developer community before that point. Carbon, at 10.0 was definitely not at parity with Cocoa and was missing a lot of features.
"...stomping on backwards compatibility in ways that upset important partners(Yo Adobe, 64 bit carbon is dead, we didn't bother to tell you until the last second; because Cocoa is just better.)"
First, this isn't an example of backwards compatibility. 32 bit Carbon has continued to live on just fine. 10.6 still is fully backwards with 32 bit Carbon. 64 bit Carbon was a new API that Apple canceled (and 64 bit Carbon itself wasn't even fully api compliant against 32 bit Carbon.)
Second, Cocoa had been pushed as the best solution for a long time. I was at the conference where 32 bit Carbon was canned, and the only people in the room that seemed surprised were Adobe.
Mac OS X wasn't even originally supposed to have Carbon. The only reason it ever did was because Adobe pitched a fit and refused to port to Cocoa, and they were important enough to the future of the Mac that they could get Carbon into OS X. It was always supposed to be a band aid that kept Adobe happy while they ported to Cocoa, except that Adobe never actually started the "porting to Cocoa" part, and Apple got tired of maintaining an operating system component who's primary purpose was keeping Adobe's old code working.
"If i come to your house for dinner, bought a covered dish and then you hide the utensils on me, it would be a more accurate analogy."
It's like selling you sandwich but not giving you utensils. If you want to eat your sandwich with a fork, I'm not going to stop you. But I'm not going to go out of my way to make my sandwiches fork friendly. This doesn't mean I'm actively trying to stop you from eating your sandwiches with a fork.
"To me, until it doesn't require any 'tricks' to make it happen and becomes a simple 'press this button at your own risk' function they are actively trying to prevent it ."
Huh? This is horrible logic.
If I don't bring you your dinner tonight, am I actively trying to stop you from eating dinner?
"Remember too, that with each OS release they fix the holes that were exploited in the previous to accomplish it, so again i say they are making an effort."
Yes, because bugs that allow you to inject code on a device are security bugs. Would you rather Apple leave these issues open so that blackhats can use them as well?
"Umm, they actively try to prevent jail breaking, so yes they are trying to stop you. They also have the 'right' to do this with their products. I also never said about it being illegal for me to do what i wanted with my device."
How so? I haven't seen them actively try to prevent jailbreaking since jailbreaking was declared legal under US law.
They won't support a jailbroken phone, either through hardware support or the update system, which is exactly what every other phone maker does. This is not Apple actively trying to stop jailbreaking.
Apple lost share when they began licensing Mac OS. Sure, they had made a lot of mistakes before that. But there is a good argument one of the best strengths of Mac OS was hardware lockdown which enabled more stable computing.
As soon as Apple stopped licensing Mac OS they started becoming profitable again.
Apple isn't stopping you from using it however you want. You can do whatever you want with it.
What you are asking for is Apple to help you do whatever you want to do, which I don't think even the most nerdy of nerds would say Apple has to do. It is totally legal for you to jailbreak it and load whatever you want on there.
Apple didn't threaten to sue Toyota, they just asked them to stop distributing the theme, which from a business standpoint is totally reasonable. Toyota also could have said no. Nothing fancy going on here.
"I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."
Neither link meets definition of a DDoS attack. By definition, a DDoS attack is a third party forcing you to deny service by overloading your server. That's entirely different than an organization voluntarily deciding to not do business with a group.
I believe that movie was set in a sci fi universe and called "Serenity."
Googling different combinations of "ambassador", "spying" and other words finds more than a dozen cases of US, Soviet, and EU ambassadors found to be doing espionage.
I'm not sure why this is at all surprising. Embassies are frequently used as hubs for spy rings. That's why countries are so picky about letting them in. Again, I'd post links, but you could enter the term "embassy spies" into Google, and it would give you links, from all sorts of different nations.
I would be very surprised if say, the Chinese, weren't using their embassies to collect similar kinds of data, like biometrics.
(Hey look! They are spying from their embassies... http://www.thelocal.se/20212/20090622/ )
"Hillary doing her job properly?!? Our diplomats are not spies. Forcing them to do spies' work compromises their ability to do diplomatic work. There is a reason we have diplomats in the State Department and spies in separate agencies like the CIA and the NSA."
This is silly. Diplomats since the beginning of time have always acted as part time spies. Every single country in the world does this. We either play the same game, or we stick our heads in the sand.
The problem with these leaks is naive idealists who think this is some new-fangeled government corruption, when really all of this is widely known in the intelligence community, and has been done for years by everyone.
So your point is... if the government didn't create a plan in line with the concepts of net neutrality, they wouldn't be following net neutrality? The logic is sound, I suppose. But it's a dumb argument. If the plan gave the government power to regulate internet content, then it wouldn't be net neutrality in the first place, as the entire point of net neutrality is that no one, not even the government, can restrict content.
I'm for net neutrality. If the government creates a plan that's not net neutrality, then I won't be for it. Simple as that.
"And part of that regulation would be not providing access to a designated list of websites. Because they could."
It could also state that everybody gets a free taco on Mondays. Doesn't change that neither concept is part of net neutrality, and any legislation that includes such things would not be net neutrality (even if the government claimed it was.)
The government wouldn't have anything to do with internet enforcement. It would only be tasked with preventing other companies from regulating traffic. Net neutrality, at least in the form proposed, wouldn't at all give the government the ability to do this sort of thing.
It's not very well known, but Apple will actually do on site repairs. Seriously, look in your AppleCare terms, it's in there. I've heard of people who know about it getting on site repairs with great success. They also allow you to mail in your repairs without going to an Apple Store.
Optionally, if you do have an on site IT department, you can get certified in doing your own repairs. Apple will send you a new part, you install, send back the old part.
That said, unless the office is already using Macs, don't buy Macs. I've had more trouble with converting offices only to have them get mad because a button in Excel moved 20 pixels to the right and suddenly their "mouse memory" doesn't work anymore. People like sameness, they may think switching to Macs is a good idea on paper, but make sure they really know what they're going into. This also applies to Linux conversions. And if it goes wrong, they will blame you, no matter how trivial the issues are.
(I've worked pretty extensively in Mac IT.)