When you look at the other roads they could have taken starting around 1995-6, they actually made a pretty good choice. I have worked on systems installed in 1986-8 that are still operating with much pain and purely DOS or ancient UNIX based programs.
Actually, DOS would have been a better choice, as they could then keep the system running indefinitely using FreeDOS.
Really, for a SCADA, there's no point having Windows unless you actually need a GUI, and maybe not even then.
It wasn't originally designed to suck, but when you refuse to spend money on infrastructure improvements, you end up spending your time putting out fires instead of making improvements.
It's not like the broken Bush administration e-mail system was something they inherited from a previous administration. It's something they deliberately chose to spend money to install.
"Even though the original intention was that any educational institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with COM (for commercial)."
"Even though the original intention was that any educational institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with COM (for commercial)."
Jumping ship is a lot of hassle. I'd feel much more confident that Apple weren't planning to lock down OS X if they weren't busy purging all the GPL software from OS X.
In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).
[Citation needed]
[...] Or for the fact that it always will be? Um, it's impossible to cite the future.
OK, so you have no evidence. Of course, it would be easy enough for Apple to issue a written guarantee that they won't lock down OS X.
It's just absolutely absurd to think Apple is going to make this mandatory. It would break the Macintosh. What makes you think Apple would be so stupid as to do that?
Why would it break the Macintosh? So long as they offered approved Apple developers a way to unlock the machine for $99 a year and run their own code, who would be impacted?
You are jumping at shadows. You are imaging some Grand Scheme that doesn't exist. Apple has in no way ever implied that they intend to lock down OS X like iOS.
OK... So why doesn't iOS have a similar "unlock" option? They could have made iOS work just like this new OS X feature. Why didn't they?
And to put it the other way, why wouldn't they make OS X like iOS? They've been wildly successful with iOS.
If Apple had shipped the iPhone and iPad with an option to turn off the jail, I'd have bought an iPhone and iPad. But the fact that they didn't do so makes me distrust their motivations with Gatekeeper on OS X.
In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).
[Citation needed]
No one is frustrated with Apple about this. The only people making a stink about it are the anti-Apple fanboys,
I've been a Mac user since 1986, and I currently have two Macs, three iPods, a Time Capsule and an AppleTV in the house. And I'm upset about the gradual frog-boiling march to locked down OS X.
The complexity here is first that there must be a government organisation for each jurisdiction set up and maintained which keeps track of IP registration (vs "its obvious" for fixed term copyrights).
Most governments already have a copyright office that tracks the copyright status of works.
Further complexity is that as a potential distributor of a potentially out of copyright work, I must contact this government organisation to check the status of every work (vs "its obvious" for fixed term copyrights), and how often should I contact them regarding a certain work that needs tax paid regularly?
Well, yes, fixed term copyrights are easier, but that's not what we have now. I was responding to the idea that IP taxes were in some way too complex to be workable.
Problem for me with your suggestion is that this is complex to administer and requires work to find if IP is in public domain or not. A work may be under copyright or in the public domain in different jurisdictions and it will be very difficult to determine which.
I don't see the difficulty. If the copyright owner wants copyright protection in a given jurisdiction, it's up to them to submit the tax. If they don't, after some small number of years the IP goes into the public domain.
The cases where nobody knows who the owner is are exactly the works that ought to be placed in the public domain so that they can be preserved.
Yes. I eventually put CyanogenMod on my HTC phone. It was like getting a new device, it was so much faster and more reliable. Hence I'm planning on a Nexus for my next phone.
I'm another person with an HTC phone. What I really want from my next phone is Android without Sense UI crapping it up. Yes, I could get an HTC phone and put CyanogenMod on it, but I'd rather support manufacturers who give me what I really want without having to invalidate my warranty and mess with firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you shouldn't buy the cheap crappy CFLs. I have one from 1998 that's still going. It's a Philips, coincidentally.
When you look at the other roads they could have taken starting around 1995-6, they actually made a pretty good choice. I have worked on systems installed in 1986-8 that are still operating with much pain and purely DOS or ancient UNIX based programs.
Actually, DOS would have been a better choice, as they could then keep the system running indefinitely using FreeDOS.
Really, for a SCADA, there's no point having Windows unless you actually need a GUI, and maybe not even then.
Well, personally I was considering moving to Debian, but there really aren't that many APT-based distros with good KDE flavor.
The UK has three major political parties. All three are authoritarian now. The current Conservative/Liberal authoritarian government is proposing this move; the previous authoritarian Labour government introduced the long term database that tracks where you drive and keeps the information for two years, and handed access to the US in case they wanted to track people.
It wasn't originally designed to suck, but when you refuse to spend money on infrastructure improvements,
you end up spending your time putting out fires instead of making improvements.
The Bush administration did spend money, though. They ripped out a working IBM Lotus Notes solution and replaced it with Microsoft Exchange.
It's not like the broken Bush administration e-mail system was something they inherited from a previous administration. It's something they deliberately chose to spend money to install.
UN control seems to work OK for the telephone system.
The RFC you site are all produced and controlled by the United States government, specially made by IANA.
No they aren't. RFCs are coordinated by the IETF, and anyone from any country can participate in writing them.
You missed a good one:
RFC 1480 section 1.2:
"Even though the original intention was that any educational institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with COM (for commercial)."
Sadly, your humble opinion is contradictory to the facts. The 3-letter TLDs are in fact US-specific, and always have been.
They were never intended to be.
RFC 1480 section 1.2:
"Even though the original intention was that any educational institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with COM (for commercial)."
Jumping ship is a lot of hassle. I'd feel much more confident that Apple weren't planning to lock down OS X if they weren't busy purging all the GPL software from OS X.
I hope you're right and that Apple add the options from GateKeeper to iOS.
I'm betting they won't, though.
In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).
[Citation needed]
[...] Or for the fact that it always will be? Um, it's impossible to cite the future.
OK, so you have no evidence. Of course, it would be easy enough for Apple to issue a written guarantee that they won't lock down OS X.
It's just absolutely absurd to think Apple is going to make this mandatory. It would break the Macintosh. What makes you think Apple would be so stupid as to do that?
Why would it break the Macintosh? So long as they offered approved Apple developers a way to unlock the machine for $99 a year and run their own code, who would be impacted?
You are jumping at shadows. You are imaging some Grand Scheme that doesn't exist. Apple has in no way ever implied that they intend to lock down OS X like iOS.
OK... So why doesn't iOS have a similar "unlock" option? They could have made iOS work just like this new OS X feature. Why didn't they?
And to put it the other way, why wouldn't they make OS X like iOS? They've been wildly successful with iOS.
As of end of last year, free IDs didn't come with the required certificate. You had to pay.
(I signed up as a Mac developer, but they rejected all my apps, so I canceled.)
If Apple had shipped the iPhone and iPad with an option to turn off the jail, I'd have bought an iPhone and iPad. But the fact that they didn't do so makes me distrust their motivations with Gatekeeper on OS X.
Oh, don't worry, you'll just need to join the developer program for $99 a year to get access to run your code on 'your' computer. Like with the iPad.
In fact, it's a highly beneficial behavior, and one that is completely optional (and always will be).
[Citation needed]
No one is frustrated with Apple about this. The only people making a stink about it are the anti-Apple fanboys,
I've been a Mac user since 1986, and I currently have two Macs, three iPods, a Time Capsule and an AppleTV in the house. And I'm upset about the gradual frog-boiling march to locked down OS X.
The complexity here is first that there must be a government organisation for each jurisdiction set up and maintained which keeps track of IP registration (vs "its obvious" for fixed term copyrights).
Most governments already have a copyright office that tracks the copyright status of works.
Further complexity is that as a potential distributor of a potentially out of copyright work, I must contact this government organisation to check the status of every work (vs "its obvious" for fixed term copyrights), and how often should I contact them regarding a certain work that needs tax paid regularly?
Well, yes, fixed term copyrights are easier, but that's not what we have now. I was responding to the idea that IP taxes were in some way too complex to be workable.
Problem for me with your suggestion is that this is complex to administer and requires work to find if IP is in public domain or not. A work may be under copyright or in the public domain in different jurisdictions and it will be very difficult to determine which.
I don't see the difficulty. If the copyright owner wants copyright protection in a given jurisdiction, it's up to them to submit the tax. If they don't, after some small number of years the IP goes into the public domain.
The cases where nobody knows who the owner is are exactly the works that ought to be placed in the public domain so that they can be preserved.
This is Slashdot, I'm sure you can find any number of examples of people who've written a pile of poo in ASCII.
There's a bug in WebKit on the Mac that stops font fallback working properly.
Reported by me in Chrome, reported up the chain to Apple.
It works fine in Chrome for Linux, so it's something weird and Mac-specific Apple will probably need to fix.
I just checked and Katy Perry's facebook profile is indexable.
Well, I just checked Facebook's robots.txt and it says
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Regarding Wordnik, I don't think Rick Santorum is going to be a fan of their site.
Yes. I eventually put CyanogenMod on my HTC phone. It was like getting a new device, it was so much faster and more reliable. Hence I'm planning on a Nexus for my next phone.
I'm another person with an HTC phone. What I really want from my next phone is Android without Sense UI crapping it up. Yes, I could get an HTC phone and put CyanogenMod on it, but I'd rather support manufacturers who give me what I really want without having to invalidate my warranty and mess with firmware.
They do. If you want a phone like that, buy a Nexus.