Also, many apps support the use of command-tilde (that key next to the 1 and below escape) to cycle through open windows. I believe this is a Cocoa shortcut, so some apps may get it automatically from the OS. In particular, it works in OmniWeb and Terminal.app (the only two apps I'm running with multiple windows right now).
I thought I made myself clear. "Best" is a measure of overall quality. Quality is a measurable value, although the metrics for measuring it are complex beyond my understanding. Basically you can find out what the software is supposed to do, in detail, and then evaluate how well it does it. Does it do those things reliably? Does it do them consistently? Does it do them in a manner that is easy to use? Does it do them in a way that is well documented?
Free software is usually a nine-tenths solution. It does nine-tenths of what you need-- if you're lucky-- but always falls short on things like quality control, or design consistency, or (and especially) documentation. That's why I said it ranged from zero (useless) to about seven on the "absolute goodness" scale.
As for your opinion about having the source, I'm quite certain that the vast majority of computer users have never and will never modify the source code of any nontrivial software they have or use. I usually don't even bother downloaded sources. Binaries are just fine for me. I'm sure that most people feel the same way.
You may have a point there. Maybe 1152xwhatever would be a better native resolution.
Basically I'm imagining a screen that's the height of the PowerBook's, with the same native pixel resolution, but only in a "square" aspect ratio instead of a wide one.
In the words of the band Three Dead Trools in a Baggie....
Sounds to me like the real point of this post is to prove once and for all that Three Dead Trools in a Baggie is the worst band in the world.
Good work.
Re:Two powerful commands on the OS X command line
on
More Switching Stories
·
· Score: 2
There is an excellent reason to use MS Word. It is the best word processor available for either Mac OS or for Windows.
That doesn't mean Word is good software. It frustrates me no end. When I sit down at a new installation, I spend five or ten solid minutes just hunting through the preferences to turn off all the things I don't want, like "smart cut and paste" (I'm smart enough to cut and paste, thanks) and the like. But none of these things, as unfortunate and frustrating as they are, changes the fact that Word is the best word processor out there.
I don't understand why you keep comparing the price of OS X to the price of Linux. I've used both Linux and OS X on the desktop extensively. There's no comparison at all. So the fact that Linux is cheap or free and that OS X costs money is meaningless. It's like saying that cola is cheap and that furniture costs money. The comparison just doesn't make sense.
I'm sure you'll be able to trivialize some of them; hell, if you're determined, you could probably poke fun at everything from "Additional languages such as Hebrew and Arabic enabled" to "CUPS Printing" to "IPv6 and IPSec support" to "UNIX PAM security modules support."
If you don't think it's worth $129, don't buy the upgrade. Nobody's forcing you.
Their pricing for an entry level notebook is about half again the cost of an entry level PC notebook.
Compare an IBM T-series laptop at $2,499 to a PowerBook G4 at $2,499. Both are midrange laptops with built-in AirPort antennas. Both come with 256 MB of RAM, and 30-ish GB drives. (I think one has 30 and the other 40, a slight edge to the IBM.) But the PowerBook has a much bigger screen (1 inch of physical size and 1280x854 vs. 1024x760 pixel resolution), a CD-RW/DVD-ROM drive, built-in FireWire, and built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Not to mention that it's both thinner and lighter and has a longer battery life.
Sounds pretty damn competitive.
Oh, and by the way, you can order any Apple computer as a build-to-order configuration, or you can buy the computer configured to your liking at your local Apple Store.
Actually, no, it's just control + button. I'm not familiar with any command + button combinations, or any other keyboard-mouse combos. Again, I'm talking about the core OS software here, not apps, because Maya breaks all the fucking rules.
Except for small, trivial software, I simply can't imagine a good graphical interface without context menus.
There is no task in all of the Mac OS that you have to use a context menu to perform. (Not counting non-OS applications like Maya and Shake, of course. Apps can do pretty much whatever they want.)
Context menus both incredibly speed up most common operations for the power user and allow beginners to perform those operations without knowing where in the menus they are "hidden".
Except for one incredibly important usability factor: you have to know the context menu is there before you can use it. Context menus are utterly invisible before they are invoked. There is no visual clue at all to tell you that there's a menu to be had there. This is not easy to use for beginners.
Usually you have to trade off between ease of use and power. Context menus are good for both, so, definitely, a second mouse button is mandatory.
Nope. Context menus are a plus in some specific situations, but they are significantly harder to use than regular menus for people who are unfamiliar with the software in question. So in my opinion-- that's all these are, you realize-- a second mouse button is not mandatory. In fact, Apple is right when they choose not to ship a multi-button mouse with any of their computers. That is absolutely, 100%, the right decision.
As for Samba, I believe you can download a binary of it. Come on, please do try.
Except that you don't have to, because it's actually bundled with the operating system. Go to Terminal.app and type "which smbclient." You'll see "/usr/bin/smbclient." All of Samba-- smbclient, smbd, nmbd, smbpasswd, the whole thing-- is a part of OS X now. There's an/etc/smb.conf file. Heck, even SWAT is there.
Most people don't realize this because it's so easy to set up Windows file sharing through the "Sharing" system preference panel. Just click the checkbox. But that preference panel is just an incredibly simple graphical front-end to Samba.
Wait a minute. What? You don't like the way Mac OS handles context menus, and yet you bemoan the lack of a button dedicated to context menus? I'm so confused.
Maybe what you're really trying to say here is that you don't understand how to use a Mac, and you're too proud to run through the ten-minute tutorial.
Repeat after me, Bartab: nobody really cares about computing power. If you're running scientific or technical computing, sure. If we're talking about gene sequencing or a render farm, fine. But in personal computers-- workstations, laptops, interactive stuff-- computing power just doesn't matter.
What matters is overall utility. If you took the most powerful personal computer ever built took away the keyboard, that computer would be useless. It would have no utility.
So no, you don't want a "fair comparison between computers of relative equal power." You want a fair comparison of computers of relatively equal utility. The $2,499 T-series ThinkPad and the $2,499 Power Mac G4 are pretty comparable in that arena; the small differences are where you start to understand the real difference between the two laptops.
Both have AirPort antennas built in. Both have roughly equivalent RAM and disk specs. Both have DVD-ROM drives, although the PowerBook's is also a CD-RW. Both use the Radeon Mobility 7500 graphics subsystem. The Mac's screen is significantly larger (15" 1280x854 compared to 14" 1024x768). The Mac has built-in Gigabit Ethernet, compared to the ThinkPad's Fast Ethernet. The PowerBook is about 4 oz. lighter, and a full half inch thinner. The PowerBook has a FireWire port.
When you compare overall utility, the PowerBook wins by a mile.
The 12" iBook's screen is the perfect size. The only complaint I have about mine is that it's only a 1024x768 LCD. If I could get a 1280x1024 LCD in a 12" size, I'd be in heaven.
You're confused. There's a big difference between compiling OS X for an Intel chip and running it on a generic PC. Releasing OS X for generic PC hardware would be committing corporate suicide. Instead, consider that Apple might replace the PowerPC chip in their existing product lines with a different processor type while still keeping the firmware and architecture proprietary enough to allow them to sell Apple-branded computers.
The general consensus is that Apple should start looking for a new source for processors. Finding one that's compatible with the PowerPC instruction set and ABI is the best option-- say hello to IBM, in that regard. Porting the OS to IA-32 and releasing new computers with IA-32 CPUs in them would be harder, because it would break binary compatibility.
Somebody else posted that opening a terminal on a 350 MHz system takes about three seconds. I have just done a "one mississippi" test of my own. On my 1 GHz machine opening a terminal takes "one mississi." And just for the record, that's launching Terminal.app from the Dock from click to prompt waiting for input.
If my machine were swapping like crazy, I might see how opening Terminal.app could take a couple of seconds, maybe even three. I can't imagine any 800 MHz system that's not out of physical memory taking five seconds to open Terminal.app.
So who here is really full of shit? Could it be you?
I don't see how preferring free software makes me an idiot.
It makes you an idiot for the same reason that preferring cars whose names start with vowels. Your decision criteria for making your choice is completely irrelevant.
Free software is not always good. Commercial software is not always bad. Generally, commercial software that's really bad disappears, because of market forces. Also generally, the very best commercial software is better than the very best free software, because of the competitive nature of the market. So if software quality goes from zero (bad) to 10 (perfect), free software will range from zero to seven, while commercial software will range from two to nine-point-nine. So saying "I prefer free software" is tantamount to saying "I reject the best software and choose instead to search for good software among the worst stuff out there."
Ergo, idiot.
In fact, I'm certain that I am not an idiot.
I'm pretty sure than only an idiot would ever be sure that he's not an idiot.
Re:Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix User
on
More Switching Stories
·
· Score: 2
Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
Demonstrably false. I am a UNIX user and programmer from fairly far back. I use an Apple iBook exclusively when I'm away from home, and at home I use a Power Mac G4 with essentially the same keyboard layout. You, sir, are just being lazy.
Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead.
In other words, "Because I am too lazy or too stubborn to accept the fact that the control key on a Mac keyboard is in a different place than I'm accustomed to, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead."
Apple's certainly not going to go out of their way to cater to customers who do nothing but whine about trivialities.
For your first and thus-far only comment, you sure chose to post a doozy.
The word "film" in this context is a synonym for "motion picture," which means, "a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement." Obviously Spirited Away is both a motion picture and a film.
"Cartoon," sense 2, means, "a film made by photographing a series of cartoon [sense 1] drawings to give the illusion of movement when projected in rapid sequence." Therefore all cartoons are films, and Spirited Away is both a film and a cartoon.
"Anime," on the other hand, means, "A resin exuding from a tropical American tree (Hymen[ae]a courbaril), and much used by varnish makers." So you're pretty far off on that one.;-)
I don't know what "troll" means, any more. If it means "an outrageous post designed to provoke emotional responses," the answer is no. If it means "a controversial opinion," then the answer is definitely yes.
I work with commercial UNIX OS's of various flavors, and I work with Linux. I have a very definite opinion of Linux, and it's not a good one. For a free operating system, Linux is no worse than anything else. But I would never, never, ever consider running a production system on Linux. Compared to any commercial UNIX operating system, Linux looks pretty weak.
And I'm not particularly concerned about sharing that opinion. If that makes me a troll, so be it.
Re:Maybe not in English
on
Tiny Boxen
·
· Score: 2
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea here, the German word for box is "Kasten," and the plural is "Kästen," with an umlaut.
Slashdot Mirror
Command-tab cycles through open applications!
Also, many apps support the use of command-tilde (that key next to the 1 and below escape) to cycle through open windows. I believe this is a Cocoa shortcut, so some apps may get it automatically from the OS. In particular, it works in OmniWeb and Terminal.app (the only two apps I'm running with multiple windows right now).
So, tell me how do you do the keycombination meta+button-3 in X-windows on a Mac?
Function-option-click. RTFM, dude.
I thought I made myself clear. "Best" is a measure of overall quality. Quality is a measurable value, although the metrics for measuring it are complex beyond my understanding. Basically you can find out what the software is supposed to do, in detail, and then evaluate how well it does it. Does it do those things reliably? Does it do them consistently? Does it do them in a manner that is easy to use? Does it do them in a way that is well documented?
Free software is usually a nine-tenths solution. It does nine-tenths of what you need-- if you're lucky-- but always falls short on things like quality control, or design consistency, or (and especially) documentation. That's why I said it ranged from zero (useless) to about seven on the "absolute goodness" scale.
As for your opinion about having the source, I'm quite certain that the vast majority of computer users have never and will never modify the source code of any nontrivial software they have or use. I usually don't even bother downloaded sources. Binaries are just fine for me. I'm sure that most people feel the same way.
You may have a point there. Maybe 1152xwhatever would be a better native resolution.
Basically I'm imagining a screen that's the height of the PowerBook's, with the same native pixel resolution, but only in a "square" aspect ratio instead of a wide one.
In the words of the band Three Dead Trools in a Baggie....
Sounds to me like the real point of this post is to prove once and for all that Three Dead Trools in a Baggie is the worst band in the world.
Good work.
There is an excellent reason to use MS Word. It is the best word processor available for either Mac OS or for Windows.
That doesn't mean Word is good software. It frustrates me no end. When I sit down at a new installation, I spend five or ten solid minutes just hunting through the preferences to turn off all the things I don't want, like "smart cut and paste" (I'm smart enough to cut and paste, thanks) and the like. But none of these things, as unfortunate and frustrating as they are, changes the fact that Word is the best word processor out there.
I wonder if those people who say others look like idiots realize how much this makes them look like idiots to the rest of us?
It's like something out of an O. Henry story.
I don't understand why you keep comparing the price of OS X to the price of Linux. I've used both Linux and OS X on the desktop extensively. There's no comparison at all. So the fact that Linux is cheap or free and that OS X costs money is meaningless. It's like saying that cola is cheap and that furniture costs money. The comparison just doesn't make sense.
Look here.
I'm sure you'll be able to trivialize some of them; hell, if you're determined, you could probably poke fun at everything from "Additional languages such as Hebrew and Arabic enabled" to "CUPS Printing" to "IPv6 and IPSec support" to "UNIX PAM security modules support."
If you don't think it's worth $129, don't buy the upgrade. Nobody's forcing you.
Their pricing for an entry level notebook is about half again the cost of an entry level PC notebook.
Compare an IBM T-series laptop at $2,499 to a PowerBook G4 at $2,499. Both are midrange laptops with built-in AirPort antennas. Both come with 256 MB of RAM, and 30-ish GB drives. (I think one has 30 and the other 40, a slight edge to the IBM.) But the PowerBook has a much bigger screen (1 inch of physical size and 1280x854 vs. 1024x760 pixel resolution), a CD-RW/DVD-ROM drive, built-in FireWire, and built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Not to mention that it's both thinner and lighter and has a longer battery life.
Sounds pretty damn competitive.
Oh, and by the way, you can order any Apple computer as a build-to-order configuration, or you can buy the computer configured to your liking at your local Apple Store.
Actually, no, it's just control + button. I'm not familiar with any command + button combinations, or any other keyboard-mouse combos. Again, I'm talking about the core OS software here, not apps, because Maya breaks all the fucking rules.
Except for small, trivial software, I simply can't imagine a good graphical interface without context menus.
There is no task in all of the Mac OS that you have to use a context menu to perform. (Not counting non-OS applications like Maya and Shake, of course. Apps can do pretty much whatever they want.)
Context menus both incredibly speed up most common operations for the power user and allow beginners to perform those operations without knowing where in the menus they are "hidden".
Except for one incredibly important usability factor: you have to know the context menu is there before you can use it. Context menus are utterly invisible before they are invoked. There is no visual clue at all to tell you that there's a menu to be had there. This is not easy to use for beginners.
Usually you have to trade off between ease of use and power. Context menus are good for both, so, definitely, a second mouse button is mandatory.
Nope. Context menus are a plus in some specific situations, but they are significantly harder to use than regular menus for people who are unfamiliar with the software in question. So in my opinion-- that's all these are, you realize-- a second mouse button is not mandatory. In fact, Apple is right when they choose not to ship a multi-button mouse with any of their computers. That is absolutely, 100%, the right decision.
As for Samba, I believe you can download a binary of it. Come on, please do try.
/etc/smb.conf file. Heck, even SWAT is there.
Except that you don't have to, because it's actually bundled with the operating system. Go to Terminal.app and type "which smbclient." You'll see "/usr/bin/smbclient." All of Samba-- smbclient, smbd, nmbd, smbpasswd, the whole thing-- is a part of OS X now. There's an
Most people don't realize this because it's so easy to set up Windows file sharing through the "Sharing" system preference panel. Just click the checkbox. But that preference panel is just an incredibly simple graphical front-end to Samba.
That's funny, around here, I can't seem to even GIVE AWAY my Power Macintosh 7600/12.
I'll take it.
Wait a minute. What? You don't like the way Mac OS handles context menus, and yet you bemoan the lack of a button dedicated to context menus? I'm so confused.
Maybe what you're really trying to say here is that you don't understand how to use a Mac, and you're too proud to run through the ten-minute tutorial.
Oh, for chrissakes, are we back to this again?
Repeat after me, Bartab: nobody really cares about computing power. If you're running scientific or technical computing, sure. If we're talking about gene sequencing or a render farm, fine. But in personal computers-- workstations, laptops, interactive stuff-- computing power just doesn't matter.
What matters is overall utility. If you took the most powerful personal computer ever built took away the keyboard, that computer would be useless. It would have no utility.
So no, you don't want a "fair comparison between computers of relative equal power." You want a fair comparison of computers of relatively equal utility. The $2,499 T-series ThinkPad and the $2,499 Power Mac G4 are pretty comparable in that arena; the small differences are where you start to understand the real difference between the two laptops.
Both have AirPort antennas built in. Both have roughly equivalent RAM and disk specs. Both have DVD-ROM drives, although the PowerBook's is also a CD-RW. Both use the Radeon Mobility 7500 graphics subsystem. The Mac's screen is significantly larger (15" 1280x854 compared to 14" 1024x768). The Mac has built-in Gigabit Ethernet, compared to the ThinkPad's Fast Ethernet. The PowerBook is about 4 oz. lighter, and a full half inch thinner. The PowerBook has a FireWire port.
When you compare overall utility, the PowerBook wins by a mile.
The 12" iBook's screen is the perfect size. The only complaint I have about mine is that it's only a 1024x768 LCD. If I could get a 1280x1024 LCD in a 12" size, I'd be in heaven.
Laptops are supposed to be small.
You're confused. There's a big difference between compiling OS X for an Intel chip and running it on a generic PC. Releasing OS X for generic PC hardware would be committing corporate suicide. Instead, consider that Apple might replace the PowerPC chip in their existing product lines with a different processor type while still keeping the firmware and architecture proprietary enough to allow them to sell Apple-branded computers.
The general consensus is that Apple should start looking for a new source for processors. Finding one that's compatible with the PowerPC instruction set and ABI is the best option-- say hello to IBM, in that regard. Porting the OS to IA-32 and releasing new computers with IA-32 CPUs in them would be harder, because it would break binary compatibility.
Somebody else posted that opening a terminal on a 350 MHz system takes about three seconds. I have just done a "one mississippi" test of my own. On my 1 GHz machine opening a terminal takes "one mississi." And just for the record, that's launching Terminal.app from the Dock from click to prompt waiting for input.
If my machine were swapping like crazy, I might see how opening Terminal.app could take a couple of seconds, maybe even three. I can't imagine any 800 MHz system that's not out of physical memory taking five seconds to open Terminal.app.
So who here is really full of shit? Could it be you?
I don't see how preferring free software makes me an idiot.
It makes you an idiot for the same reason that preferring cars whose names start with vowels. Your decision criteria for making your choice is completely irrelevant.
Free software is not always good. Commercial software is not always bad. Generally, commercial software that's really bad disappears, because of market forces. Also generally, the very best commercial software is better than the very best free software, because of the competitive nature of the market. So if software quality goes from zero (bad) to 10 (perfect), free software will range from zero to seven, while commercial software will range from two to nine-point-nine. So saying "I prefer free software" is tantamount to saying "I reject the best software and choose instead to search for good software among the worst stuff out there."
Ergo, idiot.
In fact, I'm certain that I am not an idiot.
I'm pretty sure than only an idiot would ever be sure that he's not an idiot.
Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
Demonstrably false. I am a UNIX user and programmer from fairly far back. I use an Apple iBook exclusively when I'm away from home, and at home I use a Power Mac G4 with essentially the same keyboard layout. You, sir, are just being lazy.
Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users!
This is also demonstrably false.
Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead.
In other words, "Because I am too lazy or too stubborn to accept the fact that the control key on a Mac keyboard is in a different place than I'm accustomed to, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead."
Apple's certainly not going to go out of their way to cater to customers who do nothing but whine about trivialities.
No, it isn't. The guy in the "Comedian" trailer is Hal Douglas.
For your first and thus-far only comment, you sure chose to post a doozy.
;-)
The word "film" in this context is a synonym for "motion picture," which means, "a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement." Obviously Spirited Away is both a motion picture and a film.
"Cartoon," sense 2, means, "a film made by photographing a series of cartoon [sense 1] drawings to give the illusion of movement when projected in rapid sequence." Therefore all cartoons are films, and Spirited Away is both a film and a cartoon.
"Anime," on the other hand, means, "A resin exuding from a tropical American tree (Hymen[ae]a courbaril), and much used by varnish makers." So you're pretty far off on that one.
I don't know what "troll" means, any more. If it means "an outrageous post designed to provoke emotional responses," the answer is no. If it means "a controversial opinion," then the answer is definitely yes.
I work with commercial UNIX OS's of various flavors, and I work with Linux. I have a very definite opinion of Linux, and it's not a good one. For a free operating system, Linux is no worse than anything else. But I would never, never, ever consider running a production system on Linux. Compared to any commercial UNIX operating system, Linux looks pretty weak.
And I'm not particularly concerned about sharing that opinion. If that makes me a troll, so be it.
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea here, the German word for box is "Kasten," and the plural is "Kästen," with an umlaut.