Everybody knows there's not a shred of original code or thought on such sites as SourceForge.
And what is the innovative code?
And let's just completely write off sites like Open Source Alternatives, because they've never listed any software that showed promise or included innovative new features.
And again, WHAT IS IT? Sure, there is a LOT of code out there. But show me the OSS software out there that screams, "Wow! That's unbelievably clever!" And sure, there's some *popular* OSS software, but as I pointed out in another post, popular does not mean innovative.
So far, I haven't seen any posts with a long list of examples of OSS innovation. Just screaming that there "just has" to be a lot of innovation... look at all the lines of code!
Perhaps he should define his position more, and say something like "Open Source interfaces aren't creative" or "Gnome isn't creative," rather than paint a vast category of software, including quite a bit of highly creative non-Linux software, with a single brush.
Or perhaps you should refute his points with some gold-standard examples of Open Source innovation. Unfortunately, there really aren't any notable examples. Sure, there are *popular* examples, such as Apache. But popularity doesn't mean innovative. Apache was simply one of the first web servers, which caused it to get hammered on until it was useful. But there's nothing in Apache that makes you stand back and say, "Wow! That's absolutely brilliant thinking!"
I'd guess that affectation to be "I'm a gigantic loaf of American-made Wonderbread"
I have no idea what that even means.
If they want to be scruffy, more power to them. God forbid people deviate from the societal "affectation-norm".
There are people who legitimately who present themselves differently because that's truly what they. The vast majority of people do it because they feel nondescrip -- they want to be noticed, because they can't be noticed by talent, looks, etc. So they look around and find something easy. There's no talent required to get a tattoo, dying their hair, getting a piercing, etc.
"Affectation-norm"? Since you don't seem to know what "affectation" means, I'll tell you: "a: the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt b: speech or conduct not natural to oneself : artificiality"
Are you twelve? Seriously.
Have you ever noticed that teenagers typically want to do this kind of nonsense, yet give it up when they get more mature and more self-confident? In other words, affectations are typically cries of a pathetic lack of self esteem.
But seriously, "for normal people, it's a very alien experience"? I just don't even know how you can say that kind of thing seriously. Are all people heterosexual men in your little fantasy world? That's also kind of mccreeps. What do they do in their free time? Not have sex, apparently.
LOL. Um, projecting just a teeny bit? Why don't you go back and re-read what I wrote. It's totally unambiguous what the "normal people" is referring to. That you totally changed what I wrote to "normal people == heterosexual" is just... bizarre. You might mention it to your analyst.
It is not normal to feel uncomfortable around places designed to attract the gender opposite to yours.
It's perfectly normal, and quite common. Newsflash: men and women's brains are wired differently, on the average.
i think you're just insecure because you apparently take issue with the fact that some of the employees look a bit scruffy....which isn't even remotely relevant. grow up.
The issue isn't the scruffiness itself, it's the *motivation* behind the scruffiness. It's an affectation -- same as the reason most people get tattoos or piercings, it's to convince others that they have some sort of style by copying the style of others. What irritates me is the shallowness, it's all about style over substance -- same as Apple. A person of substance doesn't need all that nonsense, the substance will speak for itself. Same as Apple.
You don't like to go in because you feel like you don't belong? Unless your apple store is very different than the one local to me, that's all in your head. Same with the lingerie department.
Not just that I don't belong, but that I feel like I shouldn't *have* to belong to something. It's just a tool, like a hammer. If you don't like the lingerie analogy, then imagine walking into a Christian fundamentalist church as an atheist.
I think Apple stores perfectly demonstrate one of the main reasons Apple has such a tiny marketshare. It stinks of arrogance. Take the "Genius Bar"... God, Steve Jobs himself must've come up with that. I don't know about your Apple stores, but the ones that I've seen typically have these vaguely-vagrant looking people. They are anything but geniuses. They're basically Best Buy employees with shaved heads and torn clothes, shot up with Apple's trademark "better than thou" attitude.
One of the things that holds Apple back is that many people simply don't want to join a cult, and the whole Apple store experience is like having to take some initiation. They should call it to the Kool-Aid Bar.
Now, I will grant that if you strip away all the crap, they are very nice stores. But to me, it's like walking into a very feminine beauty parlor, or a lingerie department as a man. It's very alien and uncomfortable. Similarly, to Apple followers I'm sure they like it, but for normal people, it's a very alien experience, and I want to get out of all those places as soon as possible.
When I read this, I was a bit concerned there might be someway queries were being intercepted by command line tools, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have a big list of open domain names that I was considering about 15 months ago, and doing a quick survey just now, there are quite a number that are still open. There were also a number of them that were now taken, but the dates on them didn't show any particular scary pattern. Just sometime in the last 15 months someone else thought of my rejects.:)
Some of the untaken ones are actually pretty short, decent names, so I'm pretty sure the command line is safe (for now).
His user name is "Reality Master 101". The "101", I assume, implies it is a basic level reality course that doesn't have time get into nuances such as truth or history.
It's surprising how many people don't get that joke. Well, not suprising when you know what the joke means. It's the commentary on the crowd that I'm teaching to.:)
As for truth and history, there is *no* company whose history is more misunderstood than Apple. I bought an original Mac in 1984. That was the last Apple product I owned until this year when I bought an iPhone (and I really hated to give money to Apple, but there was no denying the iPhone was better than everything else). I've watched Apple for a lot of years, and there is no computer company, including Microsoft, that's as evil as they are (Microsoft was just more successful).
In terms of licensing, encoding AAC audio content in an MPEG4 container is less proprietary than MP3. The only part that isn't an open standard is FairPlay, which is also the least restrictive DRM you'll find.
Sheesh. That's like saying Arsenic is more natural than processed white flour -- except for the fact that it kills you. Is Apple isn't selling something that I can use on ANY OTHER music player, it's completely worthless.
Apple started selling DRM-free music back in May, before Amazon released their big MP3 store.
So you're saying I can buy anything that's on the Amazon store from iTunes without DRM? Oh wait, I can't?
Who cares if Apple sells a few token songs without DRM? (Probably from Indie bands that no one cares about). I don't see Steve destroying DRM on every song he can. And I *certainly* don't see an option in the iTunes store to download music in the industry standard MP3 format.
Your username couldn't possibly be more ironic.
The reality of this situation is that Steve wants to lock people in as tightly as possible. That's been his and Apple's pattern his entire career.
I've downloaded several albums and I'm very happy with it. Odd mix of bit rates (some are about 224 kbit VBR, others are 256 kbit fixed rate), but no complaints with the music.
It's worth pointing out that I actually purchased my first album in about five years a few days ago from Amazon. I've actually *wanted* to buy various music for years, but it simply hasn't been available in MP3 (buying proprietary music from iTunes is completely out of the question). Amazon makes it pretty damn easy to get what you want quickly, much easier than file sharing.
On another subject, it's also interesting that earlier this year Steve Jobs was whining how he wanted to sell DRM-free music, but "they" wouldn't let him. Well, Steve, Amazon is doing it. Why aren't you? Or were we really getting yet another Apple lie, and the whole point really has been all along to sell people music that could only work on iPods?
With Apple, not-so-much. You could run MacOS X, Linux, and Windows. Very flexible.
The lock-in is with the software. Sure, if I throw away OS/X, then I have an equivalent scenerio. But if I'm not going to run OS/X, then there's little point in buying Apple's hardware.
It really doesn't matter how good Apple's computer is. In my and a lot of people's opinions, the lock-in factor instantly dooms it. If I stick with Dell and Windows, then in a couple of years, I don't have to return to Dell if I don't want to, and I can still keep my software investment. With Apple, you have to throw away EVERYTHING to get away from Apple.
If I could (legally) buy OS/X for standard hardware, I would seriously consider it. Until that day, Apple computers will never darken my door. (And spare me the B.S. that Apple wouldn't make money that way. It's wrong and stupid, and I don't feel like debating it yet again.)
You forgot about the fact that the year is totally wrong as well.
I like to say that we can tell how much God* cared about Jesus's date of birth by how much he divinely inspired the priests to get the date and year correct.:)
*Of course, I could also point out that it's yet more evidence of the non-existence of God, but that's another subject.
No free blogger laptops, no fake 'bloggers' or 'commenters', no fake websites purporting to be 3rd-party fansites... none of that. That makes the whole thing implausible and unbelievable.
I think you're missing what happened here. No one believed that was really Steve Jobs's blog. It's a well-known parody site. The hoax was Apple wanting to buy out the blog, and when he didn't negotiate under the radar, they used heavy-handed tactics. *That's* the believable part.
No, it wasn't. The fact that Apple actually DID NOT react this way supports the fact that it wasn't.
That they didn't do it in this one instance proves they never do it? Huh? Are you seriously arguing that Apple never uses frivolous lawsuits as weapons?
I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the people who insist Apple is the greatest company of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that Apple is a corporation (for better or worse) on par with most corporations.
They're not just "on par", they are one of the worst. I always get a load of crap when I point this out, but Apple is BY FAR the most evil computer company (there are certainly more evil non-computer companies). How many Bill Gates parodies are out there? How many Microsoft lawsuits do we see trying to crush them?
Isn't Apple supposed to be hip company with a sense of humor, and Microsoft the faceless robot terminator?
I really wish Apple fans would wake up and hold Apple to a higher standard. They get away with this kind of arrogant crap because they're not held accountable.
Somehow France manages to get by. If we reprocessed nuclear fuel in a rational way, there is very little that is unused. The volume is relatively miniscule. Anyway, are you seriously arguing that a puny amount of spent nuclear fuel is more dangerous than the enormous carbon emissions we're spewing out?
Nuclear power IS NOT NEEDED. What is needed is conservation.
And back in the real world, conservation is never, never, EVER going to happen. Civilization is not going to revert back to metaphorically living in caves -- and that's the only way conservation could ever fix the problem. A couple of CF bulbs is not going to do it.
The only way forward is preserving our way of life using sustainable technology.
Wrong, I take both global warming and long term storage of nuclear waste seriously.
If you take Global Warming seriously and really believe it's a major threat, then the problem of long-term storage is a puny problem in comparison. The only practical, proven, immediate solution to carbon production is nuclear power.
Slashdot Mirror
Perl too?
I would actually grant Perl as an example, particularly the regular expression engine.
What, the same closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop that built a complete, adored operating system around BSD?
And exactly what is innovative about BSD? Hint: The innovative part of the iPhone is not the kernel.
No one said OSS is not useful -- the claim is that OSS does not innovate anything. And that's a perfectly valid criticism.
Everybody knows there's not a shred of original code or thought on such sites as SourceForge.
And what is the innovative code?
And let's just completely write off sites like Open Source Alternatives, because they've never listed any software that showed promise or included innovative new features.
And again, WHAT IS IT? Sure, there is a LOT of code out there. But show me the OSS software out there that screams, "Wow! That's unbelievably clever!" And sure, there's some *popular* OSS software, but as I pointed out in another post, popular does not mean innovative.
So far, I haven't seen any posts with a long list of examples of OSS innovation. Just screaming that there "just has" to be a lot of innovation... look at all the lines of code!
Perhaps he should define his position more, and say something like "Open Source interfaces aren't creative" or "Gnome isn't creative," rather than paint a vast category of software, including quite a bit of highly creative non-Linux software, with a single brush.
Or perhaps you should refute his points with some gold-standard examples of Open Source innovation. Unfortunately, there really aren't any notable examples. Sure, there are *popular* examples, such as Apache. But popularity doesn't mean innovative. Apache was simply one of the first web servers, which caused it to get hammered on until it was useful. But there's nothing in Apache that makes you stand back and say, "Wow! That's absolutely brilliant thinking!"
I'd guess that affectation to be "I'm a gigantic loaf of American-made Wonderbread"
I have no idea what that even means.
If they want to be scruffy, more power to them. God forbid people deviate from the societal "affectation-norm".
There are people who legitimately who present themselves differently because that's truly what they. The vast majority of people do it because they feel nondescrip -- they want to be noticed, because they can't be noticed by talent, looks, etc. So they look around and find something easy. There's no talent required to get a tattoo, dying their hair, getting a piercing, etc.
"Affectation-norm"? Since you don't seem to know what "affectation" means, I'll tell you: "a: the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt b: speech or conduct not natural to oneself : artificiality"
Are you twelve? Seriously.
Have you ever noticed that teenagers typically want to do this kind of nonsense, yet give it up when they get more mature and more self-confident? In other words, affectations are typically cries of a pathetic lack of self esteem.
But seriously, "for normal people, it's a very alien experience"? I just don't even know how you can say that kind of thing seriously. Are all people heterosexual men in your little fantasy world? That's also kind of mccreeps. What do they do in their free time? Not have sex, apparently.
LOL. Um, projecting just a teeny bit? Why don't you go back and re-read what I wrote. It's totally unambiguous what the "normal people" is referring to. That you totally changed what I wrote to "normal people == heterosexual" is just... bizarre. You might mention it to your analyst.
It is not normal to feel uncomfortable around places designed to attract the gender opposite to yours.
It's perfectly normal, and quite common. Newsflash: men and women's brains are wired differently, on the average.
i think you're just insecure because you apparently take issue with the fact that some of the employees look a bit scruffy....which isn't even remotely relevant. grow up.
The issue isn't the scruffiness itself, it's the *motivation* behind the scruffiness. It's an affectation -- same as the reason most people get tattoos or piercings, it's to convince others that they have some sort of style by copying the style of others. What irritates me is the shallowness, it's all about style over substance -- same as Apple. A person of substance doesn't need all that nonsense, the substance will speak for itself. Same as Apple.
You don't like to go in because you feel like you don't belong? Unless your apple store is very different than the one local to me, that's all in your head. Same with the lingerie department.
Not just that I don't belong, but that I feel like I shouldn't *have* to belong to something. It's just a tool, like a hammer. If you don't like the lingerie analogy, then imagine walking into a Christian fundamentalist church as an atheist.
I think Apple stores perfectly demonstrate one of the main reasons Apple has such a tiny marketshare. It stinks of arrogance. Take the "Genius Bar"... God, Steve Jobs himself must've come up with that. I don't know about your Apple stores, but the ones that I've seen typically have these vaguely-vagrant looking people. They are anything but geniuses. They're basically Best Buy employees with shaved heads and torn clothes, shot up with Apple's trademark "better than thou" attitude.
One of the things that holds Apple back is that many people simply don't want to join a cult, and the whole Apple store experience is like having to take some initiation. They should call it to the Kool-Aid Bar.
Now, I will grant that if you strip away all the crap, they are very nice stores. But to me, it's like walking into a very feminine beauty parlor, or a lingerie department as a man. It's very alien and uncomfortable. Similarly, to Apple followers I'm sure they like it, but for normal people, it's a very alien experience, and I want to get out of all those places as soon as possible.
This is not the kind of thing that Chinese gov. will use a prison.
Yeah, it's less expensive just to beat the hell out of him, and you get the same result.
When I read this, I was a bit concerned there might be someway queries were being intercepted by command line tools, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have a big list of open domain names that I was considering about 15 months ago, and doing a quick survey just now, there are quite a number that are still open. There were also a number of them that were now taken, but the dates on them didn't show any particular scary pattern. Just sometime in the last 15 months someone else thought of my rejects. :)
Some of the untaken ones are actually pretty short, decent names, so I'm pretty sure the command line is safe (for now).
His user name is "Reality Master 101". The "101", I assume, implies it is a basic level reality course that doesn't have time get into nuances such as truth or history.
It's surprising how many people don't get that joke. Well, not suprising when you know what the joke means. It's the commentary on the crowd that I'm teaching to. :)
As for truth and history, there is *no* company whose history is more misunderstood than Apple. I bought an original Mac in 1984. That was the last Apple product I owned until this year when I bought an iPhone (and I really hated to give money to Apple, but there was no denying the iPhone was better than everything else). I've watched Apple for a lot of years, and there is no computer company, including Microsoft, that's as evil as they are (Microsoft was just more successful).
In terms of licensing, encoding AAC audio content in an MPEG4 container is less proprietary than MP3. The only part that isn't an open standard is FairPlay, which is also the least restrictive DRM you'll find.
Sheesh. That's like saying Arsenic is more natural than processed white flour -- except for the fact that it kills you. Is Apple isn't selling something that I can use on ANY OTHER music player, it's completely worthless.
Apple started selling DRM-free music back in May, before Amazon released their big MP3 store.
So you're saying I can buy anything that's on the Amazon store from iTunes without DRM? Oh wait, I can't?
Who cares if Apple sells a few token songs without DRM? (Probably from Indie bands that no one cares about). I don't see Steve destroying DRM on every song he can. And I *certainly* don't see an option in the iTunes store to download music in the industry standard MP3 format.
Your username couldn't possibly be more ironic.
The reality of this situation is that Steve wants to lock people in as tightly as possible. That's been his and Apple's pattern his entire career.
I've downloaded several albums and I'm very happy with it. Odd mix of bit rates (some are about 224 kbit VBR, others are 256 kbit fixed rate), but no complaints with the music.
It's worth pointing out that I actually purchased my first album in about five years a few days ago from Amazon. I've actually *wanted* to buy various music for years, but it simply hasn't been available in MP3 (buying proprietary music from iTunes is completely out of the question). Amazon makes it pretty damn easy to get what you want quickly, much easier than file sharing.
On another subject, it's also interesting that earlier this year Steve Jobs was whining how he wanted to sell DRM-free music, but "they" wouldn't let him. Well, Steve, Amazon is doing it. Why aren't you? Or were we really getting yet another Apple lie, and the whole point really has been all along to sell people music that could only work on iPods?
With Apple, not-so-much. You could run MacOS X, Linux, and Windows. Very flexible.
The lock-in is with the software. Sure, if I throw away OS/X, then I have an equivalent scenerio. But if I'm not going to run OS/X, then there's little point in buying Apple's hardware.
It really doesn't matter how good Apple's computer is. In my and a lot of people's opinions, the lock-in factor instantly dooms it. If I stick with Dell and Windows, then in a couple of years, I don't have to return to Dell if I don't want to, and I can still keep my software investment. With Apple, you have to throw away EVERYTHING to get away from Apple.
If I could (legally) buy OS/X for standard hardware, I would seriously consider it. Until that day, Apple computers will never darken my door. (And spare me the B.S. that Apple wouldn't make money that way. It's wrong and stupid, and I don't feel like debating it yet again.)
You forgot about the fact that the year is totally wrong as well.
I like to say that we can tell how much God* cared about Jesus's date of birth by how much he divinely inspired the priests to get the date and year correct. :)
*Of course, I could also point out that it's yet more evidence of the non-existence of God, but that's another subject.
Of course, it's all fun and games until the bus of epileptic kids drives by.
No free blogger laptops, no fake 'bloggers' or 'commenters', no fake websites purporting to be 3rd-party fansites... none of that. That makes the whole thing implausible and unbelievable.
I think you're missing what happened here. No one believed that was really Steve Jobs's blog. It's a well-known parody site. The hoax was Apple wanting to buy out the blog, and when he didn't negotiate under the radar, they used heavy-handed tactics. *That's* the believable part.
No, it wasn't. The fact that Apple actually DID NOT react this way supports the fact that it wasn't.
That they didn't do it in this one instance proves they never do it? Huh? Are you seriously arguing that Apple never uses frivolous lawsuits as weapons?
I wish folks would quit giving that attention-whore Lyons any attention... especially when he's lying his ass off ;)
OK, it may be a hoax... but wasn't it perfectly believable that Apple would act this way?
I'm sure someone is going to mod me for flamebait, but I never understand the people who insist Apple is the greatest company of the fan of the planet when there is plenty of proof that Apple is a corporation (for better or worse) on par with most corporations.
They're not just "on par", they are one of the worst. I always get a load of crap when I point this out, but Apple is BY FAR the most evil computer company (there are certainly more evil non-computer companies). How many Bill Gates parodies are out there? How many Microsoft lawsuits do we see trying to crush them?
Isn't Apple supposed to be hip company with a sense of humor, and Microsoft the faceless robot terminator?
I really wish Apple fans would wake up and hold Apple to a higher standard. They get away with this kind of arrogant crap because they're not held accountable.
Nuclear creates more problems than it solves.
Somehow France manages to get by. If we reprocessed nuclear fuel in a rational way, there is very little that is unused. The volume is relatively miniscule. Anyway, are you seriously arguing that a puny amount of spent nuclear fuel is more dangerous than the enormous carbon emissions we're spewing out?
Nuclear power IS NOT NEEDED. What is needed is conservation.
And back in the real world, conservation is never, never, EVER going to happen. Civilization is not going to revert back to metaphorically living in caves -- and that's the only way conservation could ever fix the problem. A couple of CF bulbs is not going to do it.
The only way forward is preserving our way of life using sustainable technology.
Wrong, I take both global warming and long term storage of nuclear waste seriously.
If you take Global Warming seriously and really believe it's a major threat, then the problem of long-term storage is a puny problem in comparison. The only practical, proven, immediate solution to carbon production is nuclear power.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Everyone laments the number of stupid people, but no one stops wonder if they're one of them. :)