You can have a versioned filesystem underneath, and retain exactly the old semantics for saving and copying.
No you can't. Because "saving" and "copying" are no longer meaningful concepts. In fact associating "documents" with "files" is no longer meaningful. This is what you are not grasping. Apple does not want you to use your system the way you always have. They want to expose you to an entire different way of conceiving documents. They aren't trying to force you to learn about low level stuff they are trying to break you from your habits buit upon focusing on low level stuff.
A "file" is nothing more than a consecutive string of filesystem extents. A document is information for a application. There is absolutely no reason that you as an end user should be focused on how applications choose to store their information in files, and frankly very quickly applications won't store their information in files at all.
You are unhappy because you are jamming a square peg in a round hole. Don't use "save as" as part of your workflow. Change your workflow to adjust to the upgrade.
And this has nothing to do with Apple fanboiness. Versioned filesystems existed on OpenVMS, OS/400 (i-series OS), MVS... for decades. Microsoft's original intention for Vista (when it was Longhorn) was to jump directly to a full database filesystem. The only reason people use non database filesystems for application data is innertia.
I agree with you that people are being chicken little. Heck I don't think the policies on iOS are really so bad. But.... I do think it is important to be clear here. Apple is unambiguously moving in that direction. There is more evidence than just "two data points", it is now possible to create a Mac with that setting and it might become the default in the future.
So what would have been wrong with keeping "Save as...", and making that action count as a branch?
Because they are trying to break the paradigm in your head regarding "saving". Saving is now something the computer does automatically. Saving a version... i.e. naming a particular version for retention is something you do and duplicating i.e. creating a branch is something you do. They want you to stop thinking in terms of saving. They aren't reducing functionality in any way.
. And after using it for some months now, the whole "Duplicate" thing still seems like a major screw-up in terms of usability. With no clear semantic gain in sight?
It seems clear you don't quite get the idea of autosave and what's going on. You haven't adjusted to the paradigm yet. There isn't a clear "semantic gain" there is a genuine functionality gain. You've gone from an unversioned filesystem to a versioned filesystem. That's the gain.
Duplicate and Save on OSX 10.7 is because of versioning. In any kind of versioned file system you have to decide what to do with history if you want to branch. The fact that you aren't considering the complexity of branching shows how successful Apple has been.
FTP, SSH and SFTP come with OSX as part of the command line. If you want GUI versions there are tons of apps for all of those.
I'm not sure what you mean by "support from Finder for iPhone/iPad". They don't want you mucking about in the filesystem directly at all. But you can mount those drives like you would any Unix drive. If you don't know how, you shouldn't be directly mucking around with the filesystem. In which case use the iTunes interface.
Apple has all sorts of things that are bad for enterprise. OS upgrades don't happen automatically and if systems are managed by OSX server then end users don't upgrade the OS.
So far Apple as retailer works well to the advantage of both buyers and sellers on software On media not so much.
Apple is a business. Apple is also very conscious of not being perceived as ripping off customers. They love their sky high customer satisfaction numbers.
iOS isn't a fully walled guarden for the technically knowledgable. A great deal of the objection even to iOS has been hysteria. I agree with your basic point that the general direction of OSX will be towards the iOS model.
The fact is that for most end users and most developers the 30% Apple gets for playing the role of retailer is to their advantage. Apple is boosting software sales on iOS by making shopping safe and easy. Most developers easily recoup the the 30%. Heck in the OSX world it isn't uncommon for a developer to have to give up 80-90% to get the exposure the Apple store can give by "recommend application".
Apple has a long history of operating for the end user's benefit. Microsoft has a mixed history. Apple is trusted more because it deserves to be trusted more.
This isn't exactly a rumor the article points to Apple's website. The details here are rather official. Given that there is an already released developer preview, no reason to call these rumors.
I'll agree that HTML5 is super standard. But lets take QT... while not nearly as standard I'd suspect for most apps you need a bit more OS anyway, and so you are using a phone, printer, computer.... and then QT is good for say 99.95% of the devices that have an LCD screen in use.
I fully understand the advantages of a standard. But IMHO the HTML5/JS standard was designed for web platforms, and web applications they make a lot of assumptions which are the opposite of what you would want in a standardized application interface layer. For example browsers don't have access to the underlying system so the OS hooks end up being proprietary, conversely using the OS is generally the reason you want a desktop app in the first place.
Hopefully you see what I'm saying. This looks like the worst of all possible worlds. You end up with a bad presentation layer, a large church of highly proprietary interface (controller) code, no obvious way to create a model layer, and the logic in a compiled language anyway. And all that wrapped in bad performance.
OK I see, I was misunderstanding you earlier. That was the idea behind XUL (the layer firefox is written in) to allow for those sorts of apps. And having used XUL apps it works.
What I don't see is why for an application this is better than QT, GTK2...? Why would I want to use a low performance interpreted language designed for browser based applications that doesn't already have an OS abstraction layer? If I want to write an application in an interpreted language why use Javascript, rather than Perl/Ruby/Python? I don't see the advantages.
Don't forget that Windows 3.1 was the version they built Windows for Workgroups on top of. An easy to use Lan for very small business.
But I'd say the main difference in 3.1 was the far better multi tasking and performance as compared to 3.0. 3.1 was the first version of windows where I could actually multitask inside windows genuinely successfully without using OS/2 or Desqview on top of it.
The question in this thread is not do the religions claim to worship the same God but do they they in fact. We are pretty certain that the god of Ishmael's descendants was not Yahweh. The tie to Abraham comes during the conversion to Islam.
As for Christiandom and their claim of descent through Jesus... grafting onto the tree per Romans, there is no evidence that the Jewish "God of Abraham" accepts that sort of reasoning.
I think "God of Abraham" is just another name for the claim that Christians and Muslims make to worship the Jewish God with a bit more detail. But that just makes it a property, a way of naming him. Most of them will accept Yahweh as another name for that God. And just as in English everyone uses the word "God" in the middle east Christians, Jews and Muslims use "Allah".
The point you are failing to address is whether the claim can be consistently held to be true. Again consider my Vishnu point above.
If the various forms of revenue open to musicians, decline then the music industry shrinks. There have always been slots for musicians to make some side money while performing. There are lots of musicians that have day jobs and gig 2x a week, mainly for their personal enjoyment but do cover the costs and then some. A more democratic music world might even create many slots for groups to make a lower middle class lifestyle supporting themselves full time as musicians.
For the merch and touring industry to fill a stadium requires that you get a non-trivial percentage of the population of an extended city to like you enough to pay substantial money to see you live. In general, for most groups to do that nationwide that requires a tremendously expensive marketing campaign. That isn't going to change.
How is that different than almost all wars, or large scale shifts in government policies? You are just saying if you abstract far enough then religion doesn't matter. Where it matters in the particular not at the very high level of generality that this is at.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not following sorry I'm probably being dense.
OK so if it is app store only then only sandboxed apps can run.
If it is appstore or signed then I'd assume that signed ones don't have to run sandboxed.
If it is anything then can they remotely kill?
I'd assume they don't want apps granting permission to other apps bypassing the security system. But we'll have to see.
No you can't. Because "saving" and "copying" are no longer meaningful concepts. In fact associating "documents" with "files" is no longer meaningful. This is what you are not grasping. Apple does not want you to use your system the way you always have. They want to expose you to an entire different way of conceiving documents. They aren't trying to force you to learn about low level stuff they are trying to break you from your habits buit upon focusing on low level stuff.
A "file" is nothing more than a consecutive string of filesystem extents. A document is information for a application. There is absolutely no reason that you as an end user should be focused on how applications choose to store their information in files, and frankly very quickly applications won't store their information in files at all.
You are unhappy because you are jamming a square peg in a round hole. Don't use "save as" as part of your workflow. Change your workflow to adjust to the upgrade.
And this has nothing to do with Apple fanboiness. Versioned filesystems existed on OpenVMS, OS/400 (i-series OS), MVS... for decades. Microsoft's original intention for Vista (when it was Longhorn) was to jump directly to a full database filesystem. The only reason people use non database filesystems for application data is innertia.
Exactly. Microsoft is easier for the enterprise to manage but fundamentally there isn't much difference in how it is done.
I agree with you that people are being chicken little. Heck I don't think the policies on iOS are really so bad. But.... I do think it is important to be clear here. Apple is unambiguously moving in that direction. There is more evidence than just "two data points", it is now possible to create a Mac with that setting and it might become the default in the future.
Because they are trying to break the paradigm in your head regarding "saving". Saving is now something the computer does automatically. Saving a version... i.e. naming a particular version for retention is something you do and duplicating i.e. creating a branch is something you do. They want you to stop thinking in terms of saving. They aren't reducing functionality in any way.
It seems clear you don't quite get the idea of autosave and what's going on. You haven't adjusted to the paradigm yet. There isn't a clear "semantic gain" there is a genuine functionality gain. You've gone from an unversioned filesystem to a versioned filesystem. That's the gain.
What are you talking about.
Duplicate and Save on OSX 10.7 is because of versioning. In any kind of versioned file system you have to decide what to do with history if you want to branch. The fact that you aren't considering the complexity of branching shows how successful Apple has been.
FTP, SSH and SFTP come with OSX as part of the command line. If you want GUI versions there are tons of apps for all of those.
I'm not sure what you mean by "support from Finder for iPhone/iPad". They don't want you mucking about in the filesystem directly at all. But you can mount those drives like you would any Unix drive. If you don't know how, you shouldn't be directly mucking around with the filesystem. In which case use the iTunes interface.
Apple has all sorts of things that are bad for enterprise. OS upgrades don't happen automatically and if systems are managed by OSX server then end users don't upgrade the OS.
In all fairness the 3 settings on Mountain Lion are:
a) Apps from anywhere
b) Signed apps only
c) Apple store only
An option (c) will exist in 10.8.
So far Apple as retailer works well to the advantage of both buyers and sellers on software On media not so much.
Apple is a business. Apple is also very conscious of not being perceived as ripping off customers. They love their sky high customer satisfaction numbers.
Out in the cold to do what?
Assuming iOS is your nightmare world, what is it you can't do on iOS as a technically savvy user?
iOS isn't a fully walled guarden for the technically knowledgable. A great deal of the objection even to iOS has been hysteria. I agree with your basic point that the general direction of OSX will be towards the iOS model.
The fact is that for most end users and most developers the 30% Apple gets for playing the role of retailer is to their advantage. Apple is boosting software sales on iOS by making shopping safe and easy. Most developers easily recoup the the 30%. Heck in the OSX world it isn't uncommon for a developer to have to give up 80-90% to get the exposure the Apple store can give by "recommend application".
Why would Apple want capsicum?
They already have capabilities and sandboxing. They don't have any particular reason to want ELF. A
The kernel code to require all apps to be signed by Apple already exists. ON 10.8 there are 3 modes set by the user:
a) Trust everything
b) Only signed apps
c) Only Apple store.
I'd assume the move will be towards (b) becoming standard. That may be good enough.
Apple has a long history of operating for the end user's benefit. Microsoft has a mixed history. Apple is trusted more because it deserves to be trusted more.
Apple isn't alone in producing things this way. If you want better standards either support:
a) a stronger UN
b) Tariffs.
c) Politicians who support tieing human rights to trade.
This isn't exactly a rumor the article points to Apple's website. The details here are rather official. Given that there is an already released developer preview, no reason to call these rumors.
I'll agree that HTML5 is super standard. But lets take QT... while not nearly as standard I'd suspect for most apps you need a bit more OS anyway, and so you are using a phone, printer, computer .... and then QT is good for say 99.95% of the devices that have an LCD screen in use.
I fully understand the advantages of a standard. But IMHO the HTML5/JS standard was designed for web platforms, and web applications they make a lot of assumptions which are the opposite of what you would want in a standardized application interface layer. For example browsers don't have access to the underlying system so the OS hooks end up being proprietary, conversely using the OS is generally the reason you want a desktop app in the first place.
Hopefully you see what I'm saying. This looks like the worst of all possible worlds. You end up with a bad presentation layer, a large church of highly proprietary interface (controller) code, no obvious way to create a model layer, and the logic in a compiled language anyway. And all that wrapped in bad performance.
OK I see, I was misunderstanding you earlier. That was the idea behind XUL (the layer firefox is written in) to allow for those sorts of apps. And having used XUL apps it works.
What I don't see is why for an application this is better than QT, GTK2...? Why would I want to use a low performance interpreted language designed for browser based applications that doesn't already have an OS abstraction layer? If I want to write an application in an interpreted language why use Javascript, rather than Perl/Ruby/Python? I don't see the advantages.
What you are describing sounds a lot like Active-X which led to awesome web apps but it was:
a) Highly proprietary
b) Horrible for security
Don't forget that Windows 3.1 was the version they built Windows for Workgroups on top of. An easy to use Lan for very small business.
But I'd say the main difference in 3.1 was the far better multi tasking and performance as compared to 3.0. 3.1 was the first version of windows where I could actually multitask inside windows genuinely successfully without using OS/2 or Desqview on top of it.
The question in this thread is not do the religions claim to worship the same God but do they they in fact. We are pretty certain that the god of Ishmael's descendants was not Yahweh. The tie to Abraham comes during the conversion to Islam.
As for Christiandom and their claim of descent through Jesus... grafting onto the tree per Romans, there is no evidence that the Jewish "God of Abraham" accepts that sort of reasoning.
I think "God of Abraham" is just another name for the claim that Christians and Muslims make to worship the Jewish God with a bit more detail. But that just makes it a property, a way of naming him. Most of them will accept Yahweh as another name for that God. And just as in English everyone uses the word "God" in the middle east Christians, Jews and Muslims use "Allah".
The point you are failing to address is whether the claim can be consistently held to be true. Again consider my Vishnu point above.
If the various forms of revenue open to musicians, decline then the music industry shrinks. There have always been slots for musicians to make some side money while performing. There are lots of musicians that have day jobs and gig 2x a week, mainly for their personal enjoyment but do cover the costs and then some. A more democratic music world might even create many slots for groups to make a lower middle class lifestyle supporting themselves full time as musicians.
For the merch and touring industry to fill a stadium requires that you get a non-trivial percentage of the population of an extended city to like you enough to pay substantial money to see you live. In general, for most groups to do that nationwide that requires a tremendously expensive marketing campaign. That isn't going to change.
How is that different than almost all wars, or large scale shifts in government policies? You are just saying if you abstract far enough then religion doesn't matter. Where it matters in the particular not at the very high level of generality that this is at.
Oh I see, so even Allah Akhbar is an example of what I was talking about. Well thanks for that clarification!