Actually, as near as I can tell it is an executable with no extension at all, but with a PDF icon of some sort and MIME type included in the resource fork.
The resource fork can hold MIME types?
(Of course the resource fork can hold anything; I mean in a format that is used by the OS.)
So they add this particular one to the filter rather then fixing the vulnerabilities
What vulnerabilities? Stupid users? Sorry, can't really fix those. Not even with a Mac.:)
The "protect filter" is not computer security rather it is computer security theatre.
It's just one of several defenses. I don't see how that can be bad. At the moment that list sports a whopping eight (yes, one more than seven) different pieces of malware. It doesn't look like it will be overflowing any time soon.
It's just a trojan with a PDF icon
To the end user, there is no difference.
Yes, there is. He might ignore it, but there definitely is.
Start up the Activity Viewer. It has column for 'Sandbox'. Right now about a dozen processes on my machine are sandboxed. The remaining 80something are not.
Applications have to be explicitly marked as sandboxed by the developer. This is to prevent damage in case the application get's compromised. This mechanism is not meant to defend against the user willfully running malicious applications.
How is it "natural" to drag storage you don't want to delete to the "trash"?
It's not. It is just a way to initiate that action using drag and drop. And while it might not be intuitive, it's easy to remember. Since nobody seemed to be able to come up with a better idea, that's how it works up until today. (Though current versions of the OS at least change the trash can into an eject icon so that the user knows that nothing is really 'trashed'.)
If you don't know about it, you can find the 'Eject' command in the Finder's File menu. Note that there's also a keyboard shortcut associated with it. And of course there's the contextual menu and the eject key.
Oh, and you can put an eject menu into the right hand side of the menu bar. It's in/System/Library/CoreServices/Menu Extras/Eject.menu. Don't know if there's a UI element somewhere to enable it. But you can get it into the menu bar by simply double clicking it from the finder.
I'm all for MS-flaming but how could anyone possibly be disappointed or shocked by this? It's like expecting 68k Macs to run PPC binaries.
Since they are transitioning from Intel to ARM, this is more like running 68k binaries on PPC Macs, or PPC binaries on Intel Macs. Both of which were, of course, possible.
Apple created a mobile OS designed for mobile form factors, and touch interface. Since that is massively popular, both Apple and Microsoft are trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop where they don't belong.
Care to give an example for Apple trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop?
BTW: The Magic Trackpad is really nice. I use it in addition to my (Logitech) mouse. For some things gestures are just faster.
So what you're saying is that developers hate their customers and consider them the enemy.
No. Developers consider their customers users, not developers.
When you deliver an application to a user - especially a typical consumer - you expect him to use the application, not modify it. And that's not because developers want to deny their customers anything, but because that's what the overwhelming majority of users actually want.
People act as if he changed his mind, and Apple created cocoa touch, the sdk and the enhancements to xcode in a weekend.
Yep, that's just plain ridiculous. Obviously there went a ton of work into the SDK. This, to me, clearly indicates that they planned it all along; it probably just wasn't ready at the time.
I would say that there is even less consistency in OSX. Even the core buttons don't always do the same thing, and the fact that the red x in the corner SOMETIMES closes the application, and SOMETIMES leaves it running, only closing the UI is truly hideous.
The window close button closes the window. It does that reliably.
Some applications just choose to quit themselves when you close their last window. Most of those are utility type applications, like System Preferences, that you usually open, do something and then immediately quit again.
(Fortunately, in the future you most likely won't even be able to see if an application without an open window is still running or not because the system will handle that transparently and independent from user input.;))
with the exception of the Mac's gestures all being exactly backward. Swiping with two fingers scrolls (in any of the 4 directions, not just vertically). Swiping with three fingers navigates forward/back.
In Lion swiping with two fingers does both. It scrolls to the end of the view and then it navigates to the next/previous page.
The amount of things you can do on an ipad is smaller (if you disregard apps, i mean) so they could basically implement the whole thing as a finite state machine and test every state for useability and stability.
Are you trying to be funny or what?
The iPad is programmed just like any other computer. And just like with any other computer you have to test and debug software written for it.
If your software is too complex for you to test it, you are doing it wrong!
So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?
Yes.
People do not always know what they need. Rather they think they know (and thats what they ask for, obviously), but in the end there are often better solutions that they are more happy with. That's usually because no one knowns all available options. And even if they do, they don't know all the consequences. So as a professional in a field, you are often more qualified to know what people need, then people themselves.
Also, I don't think people asked for exactly this new interface. Instead they wanted a better and more streamlined user experience. It's the developer's (and/or UI designer's) job to come up with the right implementation.
Maybe they also managed to get [,],` and | characters printed on their keyboard ? Or at least have their shortcut mentioned in the system help.
Use the Keyboard Viewer. BTW: I guess you meant ' or ‘? ` is a diacritic (grave accent) and is usually not used on it's own.
The next revolution would be an application menu bar closer to the document itself : 9" screens of mac classic are over now, the mouse has quite a long way to go across the 22" screen to reach the file menu...
Ever heard about the concept of keyboard shortcuts? If necessary you can define your own, you know...
Window management works a bit differently on a Mac - when you switch to an application (or an application's window), all of the windows associated with that application are bought to the front.
That's wrong. Normal windows on the Mac interleave. But you can create windows that are always on top or windows that are only visible when their application is frontmost.
You can't accidentally click on an icon in a background window either - clicking on a background window brings that application to the front, and nothing more.
That, too, is wrong. It's up to the application if a widget is usable in the background.
and applications keep running even if they have no windows open.
Yes, that's the norm, especially for document centric applications. But there are others. (And in Lion the system can decide to terminate an application on it's own - if it has no visible windows - or keep it's process active even if the user told the application to quit. But I guess your point was that an application may run without displaying a window, which is true in any case.)
Pixelmator still has a multiple-window interface. So does Xcode, come to think of it.
Xcode 4.x is mostly single window. And of course, Lion now provides API for fullscreen windows.
I think the Gimp's problem wasn't really the multiple window thing. The problem was that their implementation sucked. There are plenty of things they could have done to make it more usable. They didn't do any of them.
There's not even a real Mac version. What you can get is a straight portet binary that runs under X11. That's a no-go right there.
The GIMP seems to be predominately a Linux/Unix-Application with a windows port as an afterthought. And it's popular mostly because there is no Linux version of Photoshop. (Nor any other commercial equivalent that I know of.)
Sorry, but it talks a lot more faith to believe in evolution then you think.
No, it doesn't.
First of all, I have a problem with it's fundamentals, the Big Bang.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
I find it hard to believe [...]
Yes, well, a LOT of already PROVEN science is hard to believe. It's still true. That's why it's science, not a faith.
Also, where did that dot come from?
No one knows. As far as we can reason, we will never be able to know. That problem is - at least for now - beyond the reach of science.
Which means that non-life specimen cannot create life.
No, it doesn't. That's a murky concept anyway, since it relies on the definition of 'life', which is not at all clear when you get to the fringe cases. Take viruses for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
Third of all, lets presume that we ignore my second point and that life did start, how did the first organism know how to replicate, move, feed etc. if it hasn't been done before?
You really should read up on that subject called 'evolution'.;-)
The universe didn't create God, but God created the universe.
Where did god come from? Where does he 'live', if he created the universe? Does that mean, there is a realm outside our universe? Is there more than one universe?
I would more likely believe in a creator who gave function and information to all things, then to believe that they all sprung out from no-where over millions of years.
Yes, you made that clear.
The question ist: Why?
Why would you believe in an entity that exists outside of our universe, but not in things developing on their own?
Oh, and, even as a scientist, you can believe in a god that lives outside of our universe. You can even propose, that he created the universe. Than you have your explanation for the Big Bang. And it doesn't go against science at all, because it's simple beyond it's reach.
Of course, a god of that type may in no way interact with our universe, so it is completely inconsequential if he exists or not.
Have you ever walked somewhere and seen a fossil in process of fossilizing?
Oh my. Of course there are various states of fossilization. But you are right in a way: There are no young fossils! That's because the age is part of the definition.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, as near as I can tell it is an executable with no extension at all, but with a PDF icon of some sort and MIME type included in the resource fork.
The resource fork can hold MIME types?
(Of course the resource fork can hold anything; I mean in a format that is used by the OS.)
Title, summary and article all fail. It's an executable who's name ends with ".pdf" and has a pdf icon.
Can't be. A bundle ending in pdf is not executable.
I guess it's named 'something.pdf.app'.
And you can't even hide the app extension. (At least not on Lion. Is this new?)
So they add this particular one to the filter rather then fixing the vulnerabilities
What vulnerabilities? Stupid users? Sorry, can't really fix those. Not even with a Mac. :)
The "protect filter" is not computer security rather it is computer security theatre.
It's just one of several defenses. I don't see how that can be bad. At the moment that list sports a whopping eight (yes, one more than seven) different pieces of malware. It doesn't look like it will be overflowing any time soon.
It's just a trojan with a PDF icon
To the end user, there is no difference.
Yes, there is. He might ignore it, but there definitely is.
But hey macs get viruses and trojans too.
Care to show us a virus for Mac OS X?
In OS X 10.7 apps are sandboxed by default,
That's news to me.
Start up the Activity Viewer. It has column for 'Sandbox'. Right now about a dozen processes on my machine are sandboxed. The remaining 80something are not.
Applications have to be explicitly marked as sandboxed by the developer. This is to prevent damage in case the application get's compromised. This mechanism is not meant to defend against the user willfully running malicious applications.
On 10.7 does this attempt to escape the sandbox?
Huh? The only applications that are sandboxed are those that are built that way. ;)
I very much doubt the malware author sandboxed his creation.
How is it "natural" to drag storage you don't want to delete to the "trash"?
It's not. It is just a way to initiate that action using drag and drop.
And while it might not be intuitive, it's easy to remember. Since nobody seemed to be able to come up with a better idea, that's how it works up until today. (Though current versions of the OS at least change the trash can into an eject icon so that the user knows that nothing is really 'trashed'.)
If you don't know about it, you can find the 'Eject' command in the Finder's File menu. Note that there's also a keyboard shortcut associated with it. And of course there's the contextual menu and the eject key.
Oh, and you can put an eject menu into the right hand side of the menu bar. It's in /System/Library/CoreServices/Menu Extras/Eject.menu. Don't know if there's a UI element somewhere to enable it. But you can get it into the menu bar by simply double clicking it from the finder.
Ford isn't a monopoly because you don't have to go to the Ford dealer to by fuel or tires for your Ford.
You are plain and simply wrong.
That is not the reason why Ford is not a monopoly.
I'm all for MS-flaming but how could anyone possibly be disappointed or shocked by this? It's like expecting 68k Macs to run PPC binaries.
Since they are transitioning from Intel to ARM, this is more like running 68k binaries on PPC Macs, or PPC binaries on Intel Macs. Both of which were, of course, possible.
and sadly Apple is screwing this up as well now.
They do? I haven't noticed. Running Lion.
Apple created a mobile OS designed for mobile form factors, and touch interface. Since that is massively popular, both Apple and Microsoft are trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop where they don't belong.
Care to give an example for Apple trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop?
BTW: The Magic Trackpad is really nice. I use it in addition to my (Logitech) mouse. For some things gestures are just faster.
Now when even Microsoft is going in that direction [...] we can expect Apple and other OS vendors to follow
What are you talking about? The Finder has been 'just another app' since the start of Mac OS X.
The App Sandbox has already been mentioned in a prior post.
So what you're saying is that developers hate their customers and consider them the enemy.
No. Developers consider their customers users, not developers.
When you deliver an application to a user - especially a typical consumer - you expect him to use the application, not modify it. And that's not because developers want to deny their customers anything, but because that's what the overwhelming majority of users actually want.
Gruber said it best :
“open and better” is a recipe for success; “open but worse” is a recipe for obscurity.
In other words... "open" is irrelevant to this conversation.
More like "open does not automatically equal better".
Or as a receipt: Make it better first. Then think about making it open.
People act as if he changed his mind, and Apple created cocoa touch, the sdk and the enhancements to xcode in a weekend.
Yep, that's just plain ridiculous. Obviously there went a ton of work into the SDK. This, to me, clearly indicates that they planned it all along; it probably just wasn't ready at the time.
I would say that there is even less consistency in OSX. Even the core buttons don't always do the same thing, and the fact that the red x in the corner SOMETIMES closes the application, and SOMETIMES leaves it running, only closing the UI is truly hideous.
The window close button closes the window. It does that reliably.
Some applications just choose to quit themselves when you close their last window. Most of those are utility type applications, like System Preferences, that you usually open, do something and then immediately quit again.
(Fortunately, in the future you most likely won't even be able to see if an application without an open window is still running or not because the system will handle that transparently and independent from user input. ;))
with the exception of the Mac's gestures all being exactly backward. Swiping with two fingers scrolls (in any of the 4 directions, not just vertically). Swiping with three fingers navigates forward/back.
In Lion swiping with two fingers does both. It scrolls to the end of the view and then it navigates to the next/previous page.
Actually quite nice.
I recently bought my first laptop 6 months ago and didn't realize how bloody fragile and poorly engineered they are.
They are not if you buy the right ones.
The amount of things you can do on an ipad is smaller (if you disregard apps, i mean) so they could basically implement the whole thing as a finite state machine and test every state for useability and stability.
Are you trying to be funny or what?
The iPad is programmed just like any other computer. And just like with any other computer you have to test and debug software written for it.
If your software is too complex for you to test it, you are doing it wrong!
Take somebody like the actress who played Trinity in the Matrix. She wasn't a classic beauty or a glam girl, but she was still attractive.
I disagree. I find this actor a lot more attractive than Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity).
It seems you are making your preference of women into a standard. It's not.
So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?
Yes.
People do not always know what they need. Rather they think they know (and thats what they ask for, obviously), but in the end there are often better solutions that they are more happy with. That's usually because no one knowns all available options. And even if they do, they don't know all the consequences. So as a professional in a field, you are often more qualified to know what people need, then people themselves.
Also, I don't think people asked for exactly this new interface. Instead they wanted a better and more streamlined user experience. It's the developer's (and/or UI designer's) job to come up with the right implementation.
That would be a huge improvement !
Please provide a link, as I don't see the news anywhere ...
It's a marginal improvement, which is why it's not touted around.
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/24/mac-101-os-x-lions-new-window-resizing-features/
Maybe they also managed to get [,],` and | characters printed on their keyboard ? Or at least have their shortcut mentioned in the system help.
Use the Keyboard Viewer. BTW: I guess you meant ' or ‘? ` is a diacritic (grave accent) and is usually not used on it's own.
The next revolution would be an application menu bar closer to the document itself : 9" screens of mac classic are over now, the mouse has quite a long way to go across the 22" screen to reach the file menu ...
Ever heard about the concept of keyboard shortcuts? If necessary you can define your own, you know ...
Window management works a bit differently on a Mac - when you switch to an application (or an application's window), all of the windows associated with that application are bought to the front.
That's wrong. Normal windows on the Mac interleave. But you can create windows that are always on top or windows that are only visible when their application is frontmost.
You can't accidentally click on an icon in a background window either - clicking on a background window brings that application to the front, and nothing more.
That, too, is wrong. It's up to the application if a widget is usable in the background.
and applications keep running even if they have no windows open.
Yes, that's the norm, especially for document centric applications. But there are others. (And in Lion the system can decide to terminate an application on it's own - if it has no visible windows - or keep it's process active even if the user told the application to quit. But I guess your point was that an application may run without displaying a window, which is true in any case.)
Pixelmator still has a multiple-window interface. So does Xcode, come to think of it.
Xcode 4.x is mostly single window. And of course, Lion now provides API for fullscreen windows.
I think the Gimp's problem wasn't really the multiple window thing. The problem was that their implementation sucked. There are plenty of things they could have done to make it more usable. They didn't do any of them.
There's not even a real Mac version. What you can get is a straight portet binary that runs under X11. That's a no-go right there.
The GIMP seems to be predominately a Linux/Unix-Application with a windows port as an afterthought. And it's popular mostly because there is no Linux version of Photoshop. (Nor any other commercial equivalent that I know of.)
I'm an old-world creationist, which means I believe God created the universe way back a long time ago, and that he wasn't absent in our evolution.
So he's the one who throws the dice? Can't disprove that. ;)
Sorry, but it talks a lot more faith to believe in evolution then you think.
No, it doesn't.
First of all, I have a problem with it's fundamentals, the Big Bang.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
I find it hard to believe [...]
Yes, well, a LOT of already PROVEN science is hard to believe. It's still true. That's why it's science, not a faith.
Also, where did that dot come from?
No one knows. As far as we can reason, we will never be able to know. That problem is - at least for now - beyond the reach of science.
Which means that non-life specimen cannot create life.
No, it doesn't. That's a murky concept anyway, since it relies on the definition of 'life', which is not at all clear when you get to the fringe cases. Take viruses for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
Third of all, lets presume that we ignore my second point and that life did start, how did the first organism know how to replicate, move, feed etc. if it hasn't been done before?
You really should read up on that subject called 'evolution'. ;-)
The universe didn't create God, but God created the universe.
Where did god come from? Where does he 'live', if he created the universe? Does that mean, there is a realm outside our universe? Is there more than one universe?
I would more likely believe in a creator who gave function and information to all things, then to believe that they all sprung out from no-where over millions of years.
Yes, you made that clear.
The question ist: Why?
Why would you believe in an entity that exists outside of our universe, but not in things developing on their own?
Oh, and, even as a scientist, you can believe in a god that lives outside of our universe. You can even propose, that he created the universe. Than you have your explanation for the Big Bang. And it doesn't go against science at all, because it's simple beyond it's reach.
Of course, a god of that type may in no way interact with our universe, so it is completely inconsequential if he exists or not.
Have you ever walked somewhere and seen a fossil in process of fossilizing?
Oh my. Of course there are various states of fossilization. :)
But you are right in a way: There are no young fossils! That's because the age is part of the definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Bonus resources: check out creation.com (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-and-sardines)
Nothing interesting there.
I was going to click on the photo of baha, but worried my system may get infected with his holy spirit.
You missed a really bad photoshop ...