Why can't I put the shortcuts for Expose onto the three keys that I NEVER use for ANYTHING?:-(
What I want to know is why Apple hasn't put a general purpose input or hotkey manager in Preferences that would let you map any key combo to any hotkey-using application.
Plus, every second keyboard these days has half a dozen extra "Multimedia" or "Internet" buttons. Why can't I map those to actions?
Normally I'm more than happy to lay the smackdown on Symantec, especially after their FUD campaigns to sell antivirus software for systems that have no viruses in the wild, but I think I trust a spyware-supported antivirus distributor even less.
What surprises me is that Symantec says anything is spyware. They normally don't seem to check for spyware at all.
"What is the difference between 'make menuconfig' an interactive sysgen?"
"None. Both are evil."
COFFEEBREAK was amusing the first time.
System generation should be driven from a well documented configuration file. THEN you can start playing with bells and whistles.
At least XML isn't involved. I'm working on getting OpenNMS up. Mix Apache Ant, Jakarta Tomcat, and XML files describing Postgres databases. IT BURNS, OH GOD, IT BURNS.
"My full real name found on my official government documents is "Robert Sanford Havoc Pennington." Everyone calls me Havoc, and always has. I didn't make it up. There isn't a cool story about it, my parents are just weird. It is not a nickname. No, I do not wreak havoc, usually. Yes, I have heard any and all jokes you can think of about this." -- Havoc Pennington's Home Page
I was just thinking that. Actually, I was thinking that "Havoc Pennington" is about the most Hollywood name I've seen on the net, like, ever. "Havoc Smith" or even "Havoc Torvalds" wouldn't be nearly as cool.
He'll have to be played by Dennis Quaid in the movie version.
One of the reasons BK kept their stuff closed was so they could take accountability if anything went wrong and now exactly how every client was accessing it.
; GET COMMAND LINE $HELEP: DIR$ #GMCR ; GET MCR COMMAND LINE
BCC 3$;IF CC, OK
CALL ERR4 ; ERROR, NONE THERE
JMP EXIT; ; ATTACH TO TI: 3$: MOV #ODPB,R4 ; GET OUTPUT DPB ADDRESS
MOV #IO.ATT,2(R4) ; ATTACH
CALL QIO ; TO TI:
MOV #IO.WVB,2(R4) ; RESET FUNCTION CODE
MOV #44,Q.IOPL+4(R4) ; NO, SET TO PROMPT MODE
BIT #FE.MUP,$FMASK ; MULTI-USER PROTECTION SUPPORTED?
BNE 4$ ; YES
JMP EXIT ; NO, JUST EXIT ; IF COMMAND IS HELP PRINT HELP FILE 4$: CMPB BUF+3,#'P ; IS THIS HELP COMMAND?
BNE 5$ ; NO
MOV #HLPNAM,INDEX;INDEX IS THE ADRESS OF THE NAME BUFFER **JGD
MOV #BUF,R0;GET BUFFER ADRESS FOR USE WITH GNBLK **JGD
CLR CHRNUM;CLEAR THE CHARACTER COUNTER **JGD 425$: CALL $GNBLK;GET THE NEXT NON BLANK CHARACTER IN THE BUFFER **JGD
BCS 427$;WE MOVED PAST HELP INTO AN END OF LINE SO DISPLAY **JGD ;HELP.TXT **JGD
TST R1;ANY BLANKS SEEN YET-WE MUST PASS OVER HELP FIRST **JGD
BEQ 425$;NO,GET ANOTHER NON BLANK,STILL NOT PAST HELP **JGD
BR 430$;JUMP OVER UNNEEDED CODE **JGD 427$: MOV #BUF,R0;THE COMMAND IS HELP, SO PUT COMMAND IN AS FILE NAME **JGD
CALL $GNBLK;GET THE H IN HELP **JGD 430$: MOVB R2,@INDEX;WE'RE PAST HELP, SO PUT FIRST NON BLANK CHARACTER **JGD ;INTO AREA ESERVED IN HLPNAM **JGD
INC CHRNUM;ADD ONE TO CHARACTER COUNT **JGD
INC INDEX;UPDATE ADRESS **JGD
CALL $GNBLK;GET ANOTHER CHARACTER **JGD
BCS 460$;END OF LINE FOUND SO PRINT HELP FILE **JGD
CMP #9.,CHRNUM;BE CAREFULL THAT NO MORE THAN 9 CHARACTERS **JGD
BEQ 460$;ARE PART OF THE NAME PART OF FILESPECIFIER **JGD
BR 430$;NOT FINISHED, GET ANOTHER CHARACTER **JGD 460$: MOVB TYPNAM,@INDEX;NOW MOVE IN THE NAME.TXT . **JGD
INC INDEX;UPDATE ADRESS **JGD
MOVB TYPNAM+1,@INDEX ; T **JGD
INC INDEX;UPDATE ADRESS **JGD
MOVB TYPNAM+2,@INDEX ; X **JGD
INC INDEX;UPDATE ADRESS **JGD
MOVB TYPNAM+3,@INDEX ; T **JGD
ADD #4.,CHRNUM;UPDATE CHARACTER COUNTER **JGD
MOV #HLPDSP,R1 ; YES, GET FILE DESCRIPTOR BLOCK
CALL DSPFIL ; DISPLAY FILE 495$: JMP EXIT ; DONE
People saying that microsoft steals IDEAS aren't saying that any illegal activity occurred, anyway.
They're not saying that anything immoral or fattening happened, either.
Well, maybe fattening. What's the memory requirements of XP up to?
That's why they had to buy GIANT antispyware, instead of being able to write their own software.
Oh, no, that's due to one of the few pieces of truly innovative work they did. Microsoft could stop spyware and cut viruses by 90% with a new release of IE that abandons "security zones", but since they really did think up that crack-addled foolishness they'll hold onto it until the devil calls them home.
They're each talking about keeping their own core hardware and layering the other's controllers and software on top of them. But of course it's the hardware that's the key piece. If they use the same core technology it doesn't matter much what the rest is: they could easily produce a dual-format drive with the rest of the differences fudged in firmware.
So it sounds like they're both saying "Be reasonable, do it my way".
IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux.
The word you're looking for is "allegedly", not "apparently". SCO alleges that this happened, but it doesn't appear that their allegations are correct. They have been asked to produce evidence that IBM took the code SCO provided for Monterey and put it in Linux. that's when they started saying IBM put code that IBM had developed but which allegedly (there's that word again) belonged to IBM because of some allegedly viral language in the license for System V. The problem is that IBM has explicit documentation that this is a misreading of the license and Novell who wrote the license backs them up on it.
The issue is really quite simple. SCO is claiming ownership of any UNIX code developed by any company with a System V source license, whether the software in question was licensed System V code or not.
No, when Slashdot accepts an article about the Microsoft-style security flaws in Webcore and LaunchServices in OS X... THAT will be when hell's frozen over.
Linux Running VMware running Windows Running VirtualServer2005 running FreeBSD running PearPC running OS X running MoM running BeOS running Sheepshaver running Mac OS running Bochs running Linux Running WMware running...
Uh, how about every time they implement something that Apple implemented first?
Did you miss "Stealing ideas? Sure, everyone gets accused of that, but nobody in the OSS community with any credibility is going to use that kind of phrase except in jest"?
The only example that I can think of that might fit your claim is Windows, and the real problem with Windows was not that it was a GUI, or that it could be made to look like the Mac, since both Apple and Microsoft got the idea from Xerox. The problem with Windows (and this doesn't get nearly enough publicity) is that it duplicated the internal structure of Mac OS, even where Mac OS was doing things the wrong way. The original design of Windows, for example, was going to have preemptive multitasking from the get go. It was changed under Bill Gates' urging to use cooperative multitasking. Eller's book documents how Bill Gates acted as a hole in the "chinese wall" between the applications group (who were developing software for the Mac) and the OS group (who weren't contractually allowed to know anything about the Mac), bopping over and telling them to do what turned out to be apallingly stupid things (like said cooperative multitasking) because that's what the Mac did. THAT could be described as theft, because it involved Microsoft violating the NDA they signed when they contracted with Apple to develop applications (like Word) for the Mac.
It was also a disaster in the long term for Microsoft, if they hadn't done it Windows might have become a viable desktop OS in the '80s instead of having to wait for Windows for Workgroups and Windows 3.11, where they were able to field the first Win32 (Win32s) APIs that let them haul themselves a bit out of the mess they'd made of the 16 bit Windows.
All your other examples are what's technically known as "irony". It's like "Nobody wanted Multitasking until Microsoft stole it from UNIX"... nobody who says that literally means any illegal activity occurred. It's what we in the industry call humor.
Its a heroic undertaking when OSS does it and its stealing when Microsoft do it.
I'm sorry, where exactly has Microsoft been accused of stealing when they copied functionality?
They've been accused of stealing when they've actually used other people's code. They've been accused of embrace-and-extend when they've copied functionality and modified it so the original product they copied no longer interoperates with them. Stealing ideas? Sure, everyone gets accused of that, but nobody in the OSS community with any credibility is going to use that kind of phrase except in jest. And when Microsoft "steals" ideas and they're good ones they often get praised and encouraged for it... all the way back to hierarchical file systems and UNIX style system calls in DOS 2.11...
So you can keep your "double standard" banner under your hat today, it's not happening.
Linus has always been consistent about one thing: you use the best available tool and screw the politics.
That's why he quit developing his shaky kernel (and the Linux kernel WAS pretty shakey back then) when BSD-Lite was released and jumped on the BSD bandwagon.
reverse engineering for compatibility is perfectly acceptable
Absolutely. You know, when Linus came up with Linux instead of extending Minix a lot of people were upset with him for the wasted duplication of effort. When Linus continued working on Linux when the BSD codebase was released and for years was so much more stable and capable than Linux, the same kind of "he's just duplicating something that's great" arguments were heard. Yes, Bitkeeper helped the open source community... but so did Andrew Tannenbaum's Minix and the CSRG's Berkeley Software Distribution.
So what if it's a duplication of something someone else has done? The only people I normally hear complaining about that kind of copying in competitive environments are monopolists. I sure hope Linus doesn't want to go there.
Linux is a great guy, who's got both strong technical and strong "people" skills - a rare combination that's made Linux what it is today. But he does get bent out of shape over operating systems awfully easily.
Without such guidelines, you'd end up with even worse designs.
Worse than Metal Finder? It's hard to imagine how they could have done a worse job without risking people storming One Infinite Loop and burning Jobs in effigy.
Peter Maurer has a Butler for you. Just set up terminal the way you want, save the settings in a.term file, and drag it into your Butler configuration and assign a hotkey.
don't write a commercial product that depends on what you discover by this kind of spelunking, unless you are fully prepared to deal with the consequences of it breaking at any software update.
Don't write a commercial product at all unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences of it breaking at any software update. Don't write any software at all unless you're prepared to deal with it breaking at any software update. Don't even USE software unless you're prepared to deal with it breaking at any software update.
So now we find out that Apple has used - and is using - undocumented API calls.
Um, no Apple has no applications that use the virtual desktop APIs to compete unfairly with third party apps. In fact Apple has no competing application in this area at all, and two of the three applications that DO exist are open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't I put the shortcuts for Expose onto the three keys that I NEVER use for ANYTHING? :-(
What I want to know is why Apple hasn't put a general purpose input or hotkey manager in Preferences that would let you map any key combo to any hotkey-using application.
Plus, every second keyboard these days has half a dozen extra "Multimedia" or "Internet" buttons. Why can't I map those to actions?
Normally I'm more than happy to lay the smackdown on Symantec, especially after their FUD campaigns to sell antivirus software for systems that have no viruses in the wild, but I think I trust a spyware-supported antivirus distributor even less.
What surprises me is that Symantec says anything is spyware. They normally don't seem to check for spyware at all.
"What is the difference between 'make menuconfig' an interactive sysgen?"
"None. Both are evil."
COFFEEBREAK was amusing the first time.
System generation should be driven from a well documented configuration file. THEN you can start playing with bells and whistles.
At least XML isn't involved. I'm working on getting OpenNMS up. Mix Apache Ant, Jakarta Tomcat, and XML files describing Postgres databases. IT BURNS, OH GOD, IT BURNS.
"My full real name found on my official government documents is "Robert Sanford Havoc Pennington." Everyone calls me Havoc, and always has. I didn't make it up. There isn't a cool story about it, my parents are just weird. It is not a nickname. No, I do not wreak havoc, usually. Yes, I have heard any and all jokes you can think of about this." -- Havoc Pennington's Home Page
I was just thinking that. Actually, I was thinking that "Havoc Pennington" is about the most Hollywood name I've seen on the net, like, ever. "Havoc Smith" or even "Havoc Torvalds" wouldn't be nearly as cool.
He'll have to be played by Dennis Quaid in the movie version.
If such a client is released, then no one would have a reason to buy BitMover's non-free client, thus putting a dent in BitMover's income.
Huh?
Bitkeeper's value is in the server, not the client.
If Bitkeeper's getting their money out of the client, they're just borrowing trouble.
One of the reasons BK kept their stuff closed was so they could take accountability if anything went wrong and now exactly how every client was accessing it.
Client-side security is no security at all.
Security through obscurity is no security at all.
But probably only Perens and ESR had the stature to do this.
Pity, that.
RSX-11.
People saying that microsoft steals IDEAS aren't saying that any illegal activity occurred, anyway.
They're not saying that anything immoral or fattening happened, either.
Well, maybe fattening. What's the memory requirements of XP up to?
That's why they had to buy GIANT antispyware, instead of being able to write their own software.
Oh, no, that's due to one of the few pieces of truly innovative work they did. Microsoft could stop spyware and cut viruses by 90% with a new release of IE that abandons "security zones", but since they really did think up that crack-addled foolishness they'll hold onto it until the devil calls them home.
They're each talking about keeping their own core hardware and layering the other's controllers and software on top of them. But of course it's the hardware that's the key piece. If they use the same core technology it doesn't matter much what the rest is: they could easily produce a dual-format drive with the rest of the differences fudged in firmware.
So it sounds like they're both saying "Be reasonable, do it my way".
I wrote: ...code that IBM had developed but which allegedly (there's that word again) belonged to IBM because of ....
...code that IBM had developed but which allegedly (there's that word again) belonged to SCO because of ....
Obviously that should have been:
IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux.
The word you're looking for is "allegedly", not "apparently". SCO alleges that this happened, but it doesn't appear that their allegations are correct. They have been asked to produce evidence that IBM took the code SCO provided for Monterey and put it in Linux. that's when they started saying IBM put code that IBM had developed but which allegedly (there's that word again) belonged to IBM because of some allegedly viral language in the license for System V. The problem is that IBM has explicit documentation that this is a misreading of the license and Novell who wrote the license backs them up on it.
The issue is really quite simple. SCO is claiming ownership of any UNIX code developed by any company with a System V source license, whether the software in question was licensed System V code or not.
No, when Slashdot accepts an article about the Microsoft-style security flaws in Webcore and LaunchServices in OS X... THAT will be when hell's frozen over.
Linux Running VMware running Windows Running VirtualServer2005 running FreeBSD running PearPC running OS X running MoM running BeOS running Sheepshaver running Mac OS running Bochs running Linux Running WMware running...
It's not like Microsoft could have stopped people from running Linux in the VM, they're just being pragmatic and recognising reality.
Uh, how about every time they implement something that Apple implemented first?
Did you miss "Stealing ideas? Sure, everyone gets accused of that, but nobody in the OSS community with any credibility is going to use that kind of phrase except in jest"?
The only example that I can think of that might fit your claim is Windows, and the real problem with Windows was not that it was a GUI, or that it could be made to look like the Mac, since both Apple and Microsoft got the idea from Xerox. The problem with Windows (and this doesn't get nearly enough publicity) is that it duplicated the internal structure of Mac OS, even where Mac OS was doing things the wrong way. The original design of Windows, for example, was going to have preemptive multitasking from the get go. It was changed under Bill Gates' urging to use cooperative multitasking. Eller's book documents how Bill Gates acted as a hole in the "chinese wall" between the applications group (who were developing software for the Mac) and the OS group (who weren't contractually allowed to know anything about the Mac), bopping over and telling them to do what turned out to be apallingly stupid things (like said cooperative multitasking) because that's what the Mac did. THAT could be described as theft, because it involved Microsoft violating the NDA they signed when they contracted with Apple to develop applications (like Word) for the Mac.
It was also a disaster in the long term for Microsoft, if they hadn't done it Windows might have become a viable desktop OS in the '80s instead of having to wait for Windows for Workgroups and Windows 3.11, where they were able to field the first Win32 (Win32s) APIs that let them haul themselves a bit out of the mess they'd made of the 16 bit Windows.
All your other examples are what's technically known as "irony". It's like "Nobody wanted Multitasking until Microsoft stole it from UNIX"... nobody who says that literally means any illegal activity occurred. It's what we in the industry call humor.
Its a heroic undertaking when OSS does it and its stealing when Microsoft do it.
I'm sorry, where exactly has Microsoft been accused of stealing when they copied functionality?
They've been accused of stealing when they've actually used other people's code. They've been accused of embrace-and-extend when they've copied functionality and modified it so the original product they copied no longer interoperates with them. Stealing ideas? Sure, everyone gets accused of that, but nobody in the OSS community with any credibility is going to use that kind of phrase except in jest. And when Microsoft "steals" ideas and they're good ones they often get praised and encouraged for it... all the way back to hierarchical file systems and UNIX style system calls in DOS 2.11...
So you can keep your "double standard" banner under your hat today, it's not happening.
Linus has always been consistent about one thing: you use the best available tool and screw the politics.
That's why he quit developing his shaky kernel (and the Linux kernel WAS pretty shakey back then) when BSD-Lite was released and jumped on the BSD bandwagon.
Whoops, wrong universe.
reverse engineering for compatibility is perfectly acceptable
Absolutely. You know, when Linus came up with Linux instead of extending Minix a lot of people were upset with him for the wasted duplication of effort. When Linus continued working on Linux when the BSD codebase was released and for years was so much more stable and capable than Linux, the same kind of "he's just duplicating something that's great" arguments were heard. Yes, Bitkeeper helped the open source community... but so did Andrew Tannenbaum's Minix and the CSRG's Berkeley Software Distribution.
So what if it's a duplication of something someone else has done? The only people I normally hear complaining about that kind of copying in competitive environments are monopolists. I sure hope Linus doesn't want to go there.
Linus is a pragmatist not a rabid OS advocate
*snort*
Linux is a great guy, who's got both strong technical and strong "people" skills - a rare combination that's made Linux what it is today. But he does get bent out of shape over operating systems awfully easily.
Without such guidelines, you'd end up with even worse designs.
Worse than Metal Finder? It's hard to imagine how they could have done a worse job without risking people storming One Infinite Loop and burning Jobs in effigy.
Peter Maurer has a Butler for you. Just set up terminal the way you want, save the settings in a .term file, and drag it into your Butler configuration and assign a hotkey.
don't write a commercial product that depends on what you discover by this kind of spelunking, unless you are fully prepared to deal with the consequences of it breaking at any software update.
Don't write a commercial product at all unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences of it breaking at any software update. Don't write any software at all unless you're prepared to deal with it breaking at any software update. Don't even USE software unless you're prepared to deal with it breaking at any software update.
So now we find out that Apple has used - and is using - undocumented API calls.
Um, no Apple has no applications that use the virtual desktop APIs to compete unfairly with third party apps. In fact Apple has no competing application in this area at all, and two of the three applications that DO exist are open source.