Lets see from 1997 through 2002 all the way up to 10.1.5 the upgrades were free. You likely paid for 10.2, 10.4. Which gets you to 2006 with 10.5 which is the last full priced OS upgrade. So... how is that every year?
Please I've seen Unix systems fail for 2 dozen years in security. I was thrilled when the NT kernel came out with VMS security.... just to watch Microsoft productize their huge advantages away.
No one on/. thinks Macs are unhackable. What they do think is they don't get attacked as often. Further they have a different user base which might make certain kinds of tricks less likely. For example Apple can push OS changes out fast and expect applications developers to keep up.
Cisco's operating systems are pretty secure and even those get hacked.
A good deal of OSX is open source. For example this story is about webkit, which is a part of OSX that is open source.
As far as DRM and anti-tamper hardware there is no question Apple is advancing these two agendas. They seem to be somewhat of a mixed mind, but in general are less hacker friendly than android. So far though that has been mainly on consumer electronics and not their computers.
I agree with everything you wrote. Your point about Samsung vs. Apple vs. very well put. Apple has the public's trust. Apple has the stores so they can demo. Apple has spent years developing the infrastructure to force competitors to come to the table with a serious offer or don't bother.
I don't think Bill Gates would have let this happen since IOS running iWork is a genuine threat to Windows/Office from below. Modern Microsoft is being quiet. But for Samsung this isn't strategic in the same way.
That spec by spec comparison is commodification. Its not the old way, its the way that Microsoft created for PC vendors which drove their margins to nothing. If everyone is just selling a relatively generic product the lowest price wins.
Apple has always stood opposed to this, for decades. They have always gone for a high margin value add. That's why for example Apple developed Apple BASIC, in the late 1970s so their computers had qualitative differences vs. the other hobbyists computers they were throwing in something like Microsoft's GW Basic for free.
OK well if you have waited that long based on price, you are cheap. No one builds new technology for the cheap. New technology is built for the early adopters that are at least semi cost insensitive. Those people will create the market to drive down the prices for tablets, maybe. But I think that answers your question about "why not for the rest of us". "The rest of us" aren't going to create a fat margin.
That's an interesting comment. I had a situation where I had a bad quality monitors at home (17" 1024x768 interlaced for many years) while having a paper white VGA X-Terms (with terrific resolution) at school.
My daughter so far seems to contradict your theory though. AFAIK she's never seen a bad resolution monitor and likes to run maximized. She's got good eyesight. It may be because both of her parents run virtual terminals, tabs, lots of windows.... she just sees more than 1 as a mess.
Why have a UI built in a high level interpretive language? Because that makes everything incredibly powerful. Emacs is a perfect example of this sort of interface. There is a small bit of C-code which gets ELisp running and from there everything is in ELisp. Emacs went on for several decades to be essentially an operating system, because end users were able to write small programs to customize the UI to have exactly the features they wanted. That's a hacker's dream.
Another example was (though this one failed) was Microsoft's Active Desktop. A while collection of web based rich clients were created almost instantly because of the power of Active Desktop combined with Active X. The applications were simply amazing, and were able to take advantage of technologies like Active Channel which still today is complicated in other contexts. Just imagine if Microsoft had solved the stability and security problems where the web could have been.
Read it in context, this is a metaphor using sex in place of idolatry. The topic isn't even sex. This is like saying "parliament is a bunch of whores" you aren't talking about sex you are talking about bribery.
I don't know. Toshiba has already prototyped bit-patterned recording which is good for another factor of 10. So maybe the move from 5t to 50t is mainly driven off that technology. Seagate is playing around with Heat-assisted magnetic recording which gets a factor of 100. I still think the direction is up in terms of storage at least for another decade. But then again who saw the crash in CPU performance?
This subthread started with the question "How much longer will these be 20x the per GB cost of a HDD?"
I'd agree with your 20x right now at say the 256 g - 500 g levels. But lets say when SSD is around 3t the spread might only be 10. At 20t the spread might only be 5. And maybe at 20t people start to switch in mass. This at first drives the spread back up close to 10 but within 2 years, the spread is like 2-3 with 35t SSD costing the same as 100t HDD. At that point only the most demanding users, those people who need huge amounts of cheap storage, exabytes worth still buy HDD. That's called "a retreat to quality". That small market kills their ability to get the innovations they need and so likely SSD becomes cheaper when it hits 200t or something.
Those are rough numbers but lets say around the time you are buying 1p SSD hard drive it will be cheaper than the HDD alternative.
So we are talking about a different issue, I was talking about the cross over point when SSD gets less expensive. As far as
its there ANY possible conclusion that anyone can draw from the endless tally of such 'incidents' from apple in the last two years ? word incident is in quotes - because after this many incidents one could logically conclude that these are not 'incidents' but company policy.
That iOS is a locked down OS with only Apple approved software. Of course that is policy.
They weren't wealthy, at least not unreasonably so. You were looking at students, academics and military at that point. I'd say internet wealth was probably at its height around 98.
Probably was you not knowing which kernel at the time. You had to read a lot on the internet to get this pattern down. I treated the whole thing with much trepidation and read a bunch before attempting.
I think Debian did the best in describing this process, though I never got their working. Of course far far easier would have been to have just used another OS for installation which could use the BIOS CDRom code.
Well yes. And originally the idea was between enforcement on the ISP level and filters spam wouldn't be devestating. But spam began to consume huge percentages of bandwidth. Further given the quantity of spam even highly accurate filters have trouble. I don't filter accurately so I end up having to look at my junk mail folders.
Charles Manson degenerated in prison the first time. There are exceptions but I think people are capable of getting better. Are you as thoughtless about others as you were 10 years ago or have you grown?
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see from 1997 through 2002 all the way up to 10.1.5 the upgrades were free. You likely paid for 10.2, 10.4. Which gets you to 2006 with 10.5 which is the last full priced OS upgrade. So... how is that every year?
What is the point of making facts up?
Please I've seen Unix systems fail for 2 dozen years in security. I was thrilled when the NT kernel came out with VMS security.... just to watch Microsoft productize their huge advantages away.
No one on /. thinks Macs are unhackable. What they do think is they don't get attacked as often. Further they have a different user base which might make certain kinds of tricks less likely. For example Apple can push OS changes out fast and expect applications developers to keep up.
Cisco's operating systems are pretty secure and even those get hacked.
A good deal of OSX is open source. For example this story is about webkit, which is a part of OSX that is open source.
As far as DRM and anti-tamper hardware there is no question Apple is advancing these two agendas. They seem to be somewhat of a mixed mind, but in general are less hacker friendly than android. So far though that has been mainly on consumer electronics and not their computers.
They are PCs that run a different OS. Surely on /. you can understand that the OS does make a difference.
I agree with everything you wrote. Your point about Samsung vs. Apple vs. very well put. Apple has the public's trust. Apple has the stores so they can demo. Apple has spent years developing the infrastructure to force competitors to come to the table with a serious offer or don't bother.
I don't think Bill Gates would have let this happen since IOS running iWork is a genuine threat to Windows/Office from below. Modern Microsoft is being quiet. But for Samsung this isn't strategic in the same way.
As contrasted with Microsoft which has 8x the number of users and until recently more like 30x? Its not simply lockin.
That spec by spec comparison is commodification. Its not the old way, its the way that Microsoft created for PC vendors which drove their margins to nothing. If everyone is just selling a relatively generic product the lowest price wins.
Apple has always stood opposed to this, for decades. They have always gone for a high margin value add. That's why for example Apple developed Apple BASIC, in the late 1970s so their computers had qualitative differences vs. the other hobbyists computers they were throwing in something like Microsoft's GW Basic for free.
OK well if you have waited that long based on price, you are cheap. No one builds new technology for the cheap. New technology is built for the early adopters that are at least semi cost insensitive. Those people will create the market to drive down the prices for tablets, maybe. But I think that answers your question about "why not for the rest of us". "The rest of us" aren't going to create a fat margin.
There have been heavy full featured tablets for at least a decade and more like 2 decades. Have you bought those?
That's an interesting comment. I had a situation where I had a bad quality monitors at home (17" 1024x768 interlaced for many years) while having a paper white VGA X-Terms (with terrific resolution) at school.
My daughter so far seems to contradict your theory though. AFAIK she's never seen a bad resolution monitor and likes to run maximized. She's got good eyesight. It may be because both of her parents run virtual terminals, tabs, lots of windows.... she just sees more than 1 as a mess.
Come on, you think people are buying Apple for the hardware despite OSX? I'd buy one of those Fuji tablets in a second if I could OSX on it.
Why have a UI built in a high level interpretive language? Because that makes everything incredibly powerful. Emacs is a perfect example of this sort of interface. There is a small bit of C-code which gets ELisp running and from there everything is in ELisp. Emacs went on for several decades to be essentially an operating system, because end users were able to write small programs to customize the UI to have exactly the features they wanted. That's a hacker's dream.
Another example was (though this one failed) was Microsoft's Active Desktop. A while collection of web based rich clients were created almost instantly because of the power of Active Desktop combined with Active X. The applications were simply amazing, and were able to take advantage of technologies like Active Channel which still today is complicated in other contexts. Just imagine if Microsoft had solved the stability and security problems where the web could have been.
Read it in context, this is a metaphor using sex in place of idolatry. The topic isn't even sex. This is like saying "parliament is a bunch of whores" you aren't talking about sex you are talking about bribery.
I don't know. Toshiba has already prototyped bit-patterned recording which is good for another factor of 10. So maybe the move from 5t to 50t is mainly driven off that technology. Seagate is playing around with Heat-assisted magnetic recording which gets a factor of 100. I still think the direction is up in terms of storage at least for another decade. But then again who saw the crash in CPU performance?
This subthread started with the question "How much longer will these be 20x the per GB cost of a HDD?"
I responded
They spread will come down but there will be a spread until long after no one is using HDD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Disruptivetechnology.gif [wikipedia.org]
I'd agree with your 20x right now at say the 256 g - 500 g levels. But lets say when SSD is around 3t the spread might only be 10. At 20t the spread might only be 5. And maybe at 20t people start to switch in mass. This at first drives the spread back up close to 10 but within 2 years, the spread is like 2-3 with 35t SSD costing the same as 100t HDD. At that point only the most demanding users, those people who need huge amounts of cheap storage, exabytes worth still buy HDD. That's called "a retreat to quality". That small market kills their ability to get the innovations they need and so likely SSD becomes cheaper when it hits 200t or something.
Those are rough numbers but lets say around the time you are buying 1p SSD hard drive it will be cheaper than the HDD alternative.
So we are talking about a different issue, I was talking about the cross over point when SSD gets less expensive. As far as
its there ANY possible conclusion that anyone can draw from the endless tally of such 'incidents' from apple in the last two years ? word incident is in quotes - because after this many incidents one could logically conclude that these are not 'incidents' but company policy.
That iOS is a locked down OS with only Apple approved software. Of course that is policy.
What graphic sex is in the bible? The worst it has is some highly metaphorical erotic poetry. Graphic?
You are a minority there.
The prison system used to be better at rehabilitation. That was before the "tough on crime" stuff. Bring back 3 time loser and the prisons of the 60s.
They weren't wealthy, at least not unreasonably so. You were looking at students, academics and military at that point. I'd say internet wealth was probably at its height around 98.
I'm all for rehabilitation. Is that what you mean? Otherwise yeah you gotta lock criminals up with criminals.
Probably was you not knowing which kernel at the time. You had to read a lot on the internet to get this pattern down. I treated the whole thing with much trepidation and read a bunch before attempting.
I think Debian did the best in describing this process, though I never got their working. Of course far far easier would have been to have just used another OS for installation which could use the BIOS CDRom code.
Well if you have been married I assume you had kids and so... your wife is probably wrong.
So what are you arguing for, the death penalty for all crime?
Well yes. And originally the idea was between enforcement on the ISP level and filters spam wouldn't be devestating. But spam began to consume huge percentages of bandwidth. Further given the quantity of spam even highly accurate filters have trouble. I don't filter accurately so I end up having to look at my junk mail folders.
So that's why there was some enforcement.
Charles Manson degenerated in prison the first time. There are exceptions but I think people are capable of getting better. Are you as thoughtless about others as you were 10 years ago or have you grown?