I THINK the reason the software doesn't work is that it uses a hardware dongle for license verification, and I think the dongle kernel extension doesn't work for Intel. Not sure.
I have one server app that I have to run on a PPC still (it never worked on Rosetta). There is a new version, however upgrading to an intel binary would cost $10k and add no new features or speed.
So I keep an old G4 running OSX 10.4 running in a closet. When it dies, I have 3 other (no longer used) computers to scavenge for parts or replace in whole.
I'm not losing any sweat over the transition. The only really painful thing was having to buy all new Adobe CS licenses for Intel when we were happy with the old versions.
You'll love this then -- just go to google and type "50,706 lbs to kg". There, now you know a brachiosaurus might have have weighed roughly 22,999 kilograms. Since you didn't know kilograms and lbs could be converted, you might not know that 1 kg is approximately 2.2 lbs. I guess that's only useful if you want to hang out on US websites, watch US films, or read US books, but it might come in handy.
Keep up the good fight against other people doing things differently than the way you're used to. Internet message boards are a perfect place to make people change their minds by insulting them!
You're missing the point completely (and have a lot of angry-sounding posts on this article!).
Pros and cons / price and utility.
The utility of a platter disk is a lot of space. The cost is low.
The utility of a SSD is a lot of speed (heat/noise/droppability also in the list). The cost is high.
For me, it sounds like the GP, and many others, the pros and cons are solidly on the side of the SSD. I too ended up deleting some stored videos and images on my laptop. Like the GP, I sometimes miss some of the extra data that is now on a different computer, but it's totally worth it. Getting an SSD was the best upgrade I've done in the past 10 years. I would make the same decision again any time.
You do not understand, or do not want to understand, that a world without copyright is not close to a world with copyright + BSD.
Let me flip the tables. With no copyright laws, how does the GPL work? Answer, the GPL cannot function in the absence of copyright law. If you were to remove all copyright laws, the GPL no longer could function. If you've never read the GPL, you might be interested to do so. Look at how many instances of the word "copyright" appear in the license.
Once again -- if you are against the existence of copyright laws, by the very nature of this, you are against the GPL. The GPL (and BSD license, lest we forget!) is completely dependent upon copyright law to existence, function, and most importantly, be enforced. How else would you propose to enforce GPL? EULA? I've always heard it said that EULAs can't stand up in court.
Secondly, you said I misunderstood copyright law. Tell me EXACTLY what I misunderstand. No broad statements, no claims that I don't "get" the GPL. Just tell me what facts I am wrong on.
Reading your comments, I don't believe a word of it.
What don't you believe? I've been completely up front on on everything I believe.
I thought you were retarded, but I now think it is worse, you are just dishonest. There is absolutely no use talking to you.
I got the impression from this message that english is not your first language? If that's true, I apologize for saying you sounded like you were full of shit, because I think we're just having a failure to communicate. I'm genuinely fascinated in what insults you imagine I am leveling against the GPL and why you think I'm lying?
You have not pointed out one fact that I am wrong about. In fact, the only thing you keep saying is that I am a liar, dishonest, retarded, I don't understand copyright law and I don't get the GPL. Let's not talk about our feelings, and let's just get down to facts.
Yes, the BSD license also exists because of copyright, you're correct (see my other posts on this articles for more information). This point has never been under any dispute. As I did say in a different thread, the BSD license imposes fewer restrictions on redistribution than the GPL does, so in practice it's slightly closer to public domain.
Again, saying that the GPL (and the BSD) license relies on copyright is in no way a criticism, merely a statement of fact. Do you disagree?
If you are anti-copyright in its entirety, you are anti-GPL. The GPL can aim for whatever end results are wanted (and there is certainly a great of material put out by FSF/RMS about the goals of the GPL), but the foundations of the GPL are based upon copyright law. There's no getting around that...
You are confused about how copyright works,
Enlighten me? Because it basically seems you're just completely full of shit. Have you brought any facts to this discussion? I mean honestly, what statement of mine do you disagree with? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Incidentally, if you're asking my personal opinion, I would probably lean more towards the BSD license philosophically. In my personal politics I tend more towards the libertarian than the paternalistic. I'm a live and let live type. I view most attempts to control how other people live as somewhat unsavory at best. Having said that, I appreciate both licenses for their flexibilities, use GPL programs, and have donated to both GPL and BSD projects.
The GPL solely exists because of copyright law. If you are anti-copyright, you are anti-GPL. The GPL cannot exist in the absence of copyright. That's not at all a criticism, merely a statement of fact. You can be against ASPECTS of copyright law and still a fan of the GPL, but as the original comment merely said "against copyright" I thought it was pretty clear what was meant.
If nothing was copyrightable I suppose a reasonable facsimile of the GPL could be made using contracts, but it would be much more complex, cumbersome for contractors and contractees alike, and I suspect harder (or impossible?) to enforce.
I'm a Libertarian. I'm not "against copyright". At least not reasonable copyright.
Not sure what you're replying to, but the poster to whom I replied said he was both a Libertarian and anti-copyright.
I'm a libertarian (not with an "L") and believe there should be some amount of copyright law. Copyright enables the GPL -- that's a good thing!
But you're also wrong in another regard. Even if you are wholly against copyright you can still be for the GPL, because it subverts the intent of copyright to accomplish something totally different. That's what I always admired about the GPL, how it used the dark side of copyright to accomplish something positive.
I don't see it that way at all. I do agree that copyright today is in many ways disgustingly perverse (exorbitant statutory fines, extradition, 100+ year control, for starts). However, GPL doesn't "subvert" copyright at all. Copyright was--and always has been--to allow the right holder (ie, creator) some level of control in terms of use. If that use is the GPL--fine. If that use is licensing--fine. If you want to sell your right--fine.
I think we do agree that the GPL is genius because it works within the current legal framework.
No, not really. The wikipedia article on copyleft looks like a good starting point though!
The reason I say that if you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL is that the GPL relies on copyright to function. The BSD license is closer to a world without copyright, as the BSD license functions more like public domain.
If you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL.
I would somewhat agree with the GP's assertion. In my (admittedly limited) experience, I have run into many libertarian or anarcho-libertarian types in the BSD world. I would classify the "freedom"-oriented people in the Linux world as more paternalistic.
I feel stupid saying this, but before reading this blurb (I refuse to click the link and give this guy hits), I never made the connection that radio buttons were from the old push-down / pop-up radio buttons.
Which just goes to show, iconography or UI elements don't have to have a connection to something commonly used or known to be understood. I've been able to use radio buttons fine for decades without realizing what the historical antecedent was.
Besides, who today hasn't seen a clipboard, bookmark, calendar, manila folder, magnifying glass, binocular, envelope, wrench or gears, microphone, photograph, or television? I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that in 50 years, all those things will still exist and still be commonly known. Most of those things are necessary as long as being a human still involves interacting with the physical world in some way. I don't think books will disappear, and I don't think tablets will end paper. Even if the devices themselves change (ie, binocular or magnifying glass into a unified electric optical device?), the analog remains.
Address Books and handset phones are likely to be things of the past, carbon copies pretty rare (though still very common today), and blue prints probably in the dustbin of history. If we got rid of "carbon copy" what would we rename the CC field to? "Other addresses that this message should go to, but not be the primary recipient of?" And BCC?
I'm running Lion on a MacPro 1,1 (1st gen, early 2007) right now. It works quite well! It will not be supported for 10.8, but that's because of the video card (stupid to not support an X1900XT).
So, I should have tempered my statement by saying that some 1st gen macs remain supported for Lion, and, afaik, all macs sold after January 2007 are still supported for Lion.
PPC macs have not been sold since 2006. They are no longer supported (we still run 2 power pc macs running 10.4 at work, fwiw, running legacy applications). They were supported through the end of 10.5 (early 2011). 5+ years.
OSX 10.6 and 10.7 are being actively updated. I hate 10.7 and have stuck with 10.6.
First generation Intel Macs were released running 10.4. First generation Intel macs can run OSX 10.7, so they are still supported. They will no longer be supported with 10.8. ~6 years.
Apple seems to roughly support hardware for at least 5 years (given that we've gone through a PPC->Intel transition AND a 32-bit to 64-bit transition in the last ~7 years, not too shabby). I hope they will keep updating 10.6 now that they are hurrying up their OS release schedules.
I understand Apple losses money to support users but something should be done. If not after a few billion lost dollars in bank accounts will create some nasty lawsuits.
Apple has been getting more serious about security for awhile (in comparison to, "we're unix, we're ok"). Sandbox, gatekeeper, removal of automatic execution, malware removal tool, etc. They need to gt a LOT better in how they respond though.
Apple clearly understands support in general though. They routinely get excellent marks on their support. See the genius bars as an example. I personally have had out of warranty macs repaired for free. My sister had an out of warranty Macbook case top replaced when it chipped. And so forth. Support is one of the big reasons to buy an Apple, imho.
With the number of machines that remain, it seems clear also that Mac users aren't using auto updates. What's up with that?
You're surprised that users dont install updates? Or choose to skip updates when they are offered? You must be new here... (and by here, I mean, anywhere) This is hardly a problem that is unique to mac users or even ignorant users.
You're right, but you left out why they went in this direction.
Apple is trying to support users with no PC. They keep talking about the "Post-PC" era. They have customers (although perhaps a small number) who have an iPhone and iPad, but no laptop/desktop and an Airport (or Time Capsule, same thing with hard drive). They aren't to where this is a fully working platform yet (for instance you need a PC to initialize the phone), but the iCloud road map and what they roll out point in this direction.
You no longer need a PC to initialize the phone/ipad/ipod as of iOS 5.0. I absolutely agree that the direction they're headed--the post-PC or non-PC-centric world. Unfortunately they have primarily come at it from the angle of dumbing down the desktop, not making the non-PC devices more powerful.
One of the puzzle pieces was making a configuration client for the iPhone/iPad to configure the Airport. It further makes sense that there would be only one program / interface across both platforms, so OSX got the same thing. I suspect they realized the left out and dumbed down features, hence leaving the old version around, I suspect the next version will put many of them back on both iOS and OSX devices.
Here is where I disagree. I DON'T think it makes sense to have only one program for all platforms. More exactly, I don't agree that there should be only on interface for each platform. Gmail is one program that displays differently (with different capabilities) on a phone, a tablet, and a desktop.
One of the interesting things from talking to Apple folks is they feel, for most users, IPv6 should need no configuration. For instance there's no way in OSX to configure IPv6 DHCP on or off, if the RA says to do DHCP, it does, if not, it doesn't. For the Airport it should look for RA's from the ISP, if they are there it should do DHCP (probably with Prefix Delegation), if that works it should configure IPv6 on the LAN side. Apple will likely have to make a nod to static addressing and provide manual configuration; but the defaults will be automatic configuration when available I'm sure. I suspect this will come out with the next rev of hardware (since they don't do new software features on older hardware for Airports), and actually make IPv6 as easy as well, doing nothing for Apple users with the newest hardware.
I have never played with IPv6, but is this true? In my Snow Leopard settings for Adapter TCP/IP there's an IPv6 section to configure "Automatically", "Manually", or "Off".
I like Spaces better in Lion. At first I was annoyed that my precious 4x4 grid was now a line, but I like better how the spaces and windows within them are combined with exposed and displayed.
I mostly miss the "all windows" expose view (since each application's windows are now stacked on top of each other). I find it--for me--less functional. I no longer use the Spaces part, but one of my colleagues says the ordering of his Screen desktops frequently gets changed around. Not sure exactly of the details.
I agree with iCal being terrible though, and the odd shift from Save As to Duplicate is rough - but that one I can chalk up to my having been used to how things are, and I'm willing to ride out that change to see if it's really better. The CS person in me thinks it is better because it's Apple baking version control into every document, which is pretty compelling if support becomes widespread.
I'm willing to give it a chance as well. The versioning is a nice feature, I agree. Can't say I've used it a single time other than when testing.
I upgraded my Mac Pro at work to Lion and can't say there's a single changed feature that I prefer over Snow Leopard. Not one thing. Mission Control is a regression, the removal of Save As / Duplicate is just confusing and annoying, Launchpad utterly useless, buggy (time machine backups, notably), annoying flat, monochrome, greyscale interface change throughout the system (finder sidebars, itunes, etc). Address Book is awful. iCal is awful. It's possible there's SOME new feature I prefer, but I can't think of one (iPhoto/Address book iCloud support is nice, but hardly an "OS" feature).
My personal laptop is just shy of 5 years old (still running very well after getting the Nvidia bug fixed) and I had been really hoping to upgrade when the next revision of laptops come out. I'm really not sure I want to at this point...
The trend has been for Apple to add MOST features back in at some point, so hopefully it continues. I can't imagine Airport Utility will stay this way forever.
I remember in at least one version of OS/2 that I used to run (2? Warp?), if you sorted the driver lines in your CONFIG.SYS alphabetically, your boot time would improve dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
I THINK the reason the software doesn't work is that it uses a hardware dongle for license verification, and I think the dongle kernel extension doesn't work for Intel. Not sure.
I have one server app that I have to run on a PPC still (it never worked on Rosetta). There is a new version, however upgrading to an intel binary would cost $10k and add no new features or speed.
So I keep an old G4 running OSX 10.4 running in a closet. When it dies, I have 3 other (no longer used) computers to scavenge for parts or replace in whole.
I'm not losing any sweat over the transition. The only really painful thing was having to buy all new Adobe CS licenses for Intel when we were happy with the old versions.
True, but given the contexts in which they are used by 99% of the people on the planet, there's little effective difference.
Maybe the distinction will gain more relevance with future developments, but I don't see the lb making it off the earth as a unit of any use.
You'll love this then -- just go to google and type "50,706 lbs to kg". There, now you know a brachiosaurus might have have weighed roughly 22,999 kilograms. Since you didn't know kilograms and lbs could be converted, you might not know that 1 kg is approximately 2.2 lbs. I guess that's only useful if you want to hang out on US websites, watch US films, or read US books, but it might come in handy.
Keep up the good fight against other people doing things differently than the way you're used to. Internet message boards are a perfect place to make people change their minds by insulting them!
You're missing the point completely (and have a lot of angry-sounding posts on this article!).
Pros and cons / price and utility.
The utility of a platter disk is a lot of space. The cost is low.
The utility of a SSD is a lot of speed (heat/noise/droppability also in the list). The cost is high.
For me, it sounds like the GP, and many others, the pros and cons are solidly on the side of the SSD. I too ended up deleting some stored videos and images on my laptop. Like the GP, I sometimes miss some of the extra data that is now on a different computer, but it's totally worth it. Getting an SSD was the best upgrade I've done in the past 10 years. I would make the same decision again any time.
Who in the what now?
You do not understand, or do not want to understand, that a world without copyright is not close to a world with copyright + BSD.
Let me flip the tables. With no copyright laws, how does the GPL work? Answer, the GPL cannot function in the absence of copyright law. If you were to remove all copyright laws, the GPL no longer could function. If you've never read the GPL, you might be interested to do so. Look at how many instances of the word "copyright" appear in the license.
Once again -- if you are against the existence of copyright laws, by the very nature of this, you are against the GPL. The GPL (and BSD license, lest we forget!) is completely dependent upon copyright law to existence, function, and most importantly, be enforced. How else would you propose to enforce GPL? EULA? I've always heard it said that EULAs can't stand up in court.
Secondly, you said I misunderstood copyright law. Tell me EXACTLY what I misunderstand. No broad statements, no claims that I don't "get" the GPL. Just tell me what facts I am wrong on.
Reading your comments, I don't believe a word of it.
What don't you believe? I've been completely up front on on everything I believe.
I thought you were retarded, but I now think it is worse, you are just dishonest. There is absolutely no use talking to you.
I got the impression from this message that english is not your first language? If that's true, I apologize for saying you sounded like you were full of shit, because I think we're just having a failure to communicate. I'm genuinely fascinated in what insults you imagine I am leveling against the GPL and why you think I'm lying?
You have not pointed out one fact that I am wrong about. In fact, the only thing you keep saying is that I am a liar, dishonest, retarded, I don't understand copyright law and I don't get the GPL. Let's not talk about our feelings, and let's just get down to facts.
Yes, the BSD license also exists because of copyright, you're correct (see my other posts on this articles for more information). This point has never been under any dispute. As I did say in a different thread, the BSD license imposes fewer restrictions on redistribution than the GPL does, so in practice it's slightly closer to public domain.
Again, saying that the GPL (and the BSD) license relies on copyright is in no way a criticism, merely a statement of fact. Do you disagree?
If you are anti-copyright in its entirety, you are anti-GPL. The GPL can aim for whatever end results are wanted (and there is certainly a great of material put out by FSF/RMS about the goals of the GPL), but the foundations of the GPL are based upon copyright law. There's no getting around that...
You are confused about how copyright works,
Enlighten me? Because it basically seems you're just completely full of shit. Have you brought any facts to this discussion? I mean honestly, what statement of mine do you disagree with? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Incidentally, if you're asking my personal opinion, I would probably lean more towards the BSD license philosophically. In my personal politics I tend more towards the libertarian than the paternalistic. I'm a live and let live type. I view most attempts to control how other people live as somewhat unsavory at best. Having said that, I appreciate both licenses for their flexibilities, use GPL programs, and have donated to both GPL and BSD projects.
I think you're confused about my point then.
The GPL solely exists because of copyright law. If you are anti-copyright, you are anti-GPL. The GPL cannot exist in the absence of copyright. That's not at all a criticism, merely a statement of fact. You can be against ASPECTS of copyright law and still a fan of the GPL, but as the original comment merely said "against copyright" I thought it was pretty clear what was meant.
If nothing was copyrightable I suppose a reasonable facsimile of the GPL could be made using contracts, but it would be much more complex, cumbersome for contractors and contractees alike, and I suspect harder (or impossible?) to enforce.
Exactly. It's sort of a troll license, and it fights against patents too. And BSD also needs copyright, so Idon't get that criticism.
What criticism are you referring to?
I'm a Libertarian. I'm not "against copyright". At least not reasonable copyright.
Not sure what you're replying to, but the poster to whom I replied said he was both a Libertarian and anti-copyright.
I'm a libertarian (not with an "L") and believe there should be some amount of copyright law. Copyright enables the GPL -- that's a good thing!
But you're also wrong in another regard. Even if you are wholly against copyright you can still be for the GPL, because it subverts the intent of copyright to accomplish something totally different. That's what I always admired about the GPL, how it used the dark side of copyright to accomplish something positive.
I don't see it that way at all. I do agree that copyright today is in many ways disgustingly perverse (exorbitant statutory fines, extradition, 100+ year control, for starts). However, GPL doesn't "subvert" copyright at all. Copyright was--and always has been--to allow the right holder (ie, creator) some level of control in terms of use. If that use is the GPL--fine. If that use is licensing--fine. If you want to sell your right--fine.
I think we do agree that the GPL is genius because it works within the current legal framework.
No, not really. The wikipedia article on copyleft looks like a good starting point though!
The reason I say that if you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL is that the GPL relies on copyright to function. The BSD license is closer to a world without copyright, as the BSD license functions more like public domain.
I wouldn't say I was frothing though I do think the blurb is moronic.
I also think the average age on slashdot is substantially higher than it was 10 years ago.
Very interesting, I had not heard that before.
If you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL.
I would somewhat agree with the GP's assertion. In my (admittedly limited) experience, I have run into many libertarian or anarcho-libertarian types in the BSD world. I would classify the "freedom"-oriented people in the Linux world as more paternalistic.
I feel stupid saying this, but before reading this blurb (I refuse to click the link and give this guy hits), I never made the connection that radio buttons were from the old push-down / pop-up radio buttons.
Which just goes to show, iconography or UI elements don't have to have a connection to something commonly used or known to be understood. I've been able to use radio buttons fine for decades without realizing what the historical antecedent was.
Besides, who today hasn't seen a clipboard, bookmark, calendar, manila folder, magnifying glass, binocular, envelope, wrench or gears, microphone, photograph, or television? I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that in 50 years, all those things will still exist and still be commonly known. Most of those things are necessary as long as being a human still involves interacting with the physical world in some way. I don't think books will disappear, and I don't think tablets will end paper. Even if the devices themselves change (ie, binocular or magnifying glass into a unified electric optical device?), the analog remains.
Address Books and handset phones are likely to be things of the past, carbon copies pretty rare (though still very common today), and blue prints probably in the dustbin of history. If we got rid of "carbon copy" what would we rename the CC field to? "Other addresses that this message should go to, but not be the primary recipient of?" And BCC?
Not quite true.
I'm running Lion on a MacPro 1,1 (1st gen, early 2007) right now. It works quite well! It will not be supported for 10.8, but that's because of the video card (stupid to not support an X1900XT).
So, I should have tempered my statement by saying that some 1st gen macs remain supported for Lion, and, afaik, all macs sold after January 2007 are still supported for Lion.
PPC macs have not been sold since 2006. They are no longer supported (we still run 2 power pc macs running 10.4 at work, fwiw, running legacy applications). They were supported through the end of 10.5 (early 2011). 5+ years.
OSX 10.6 and 10.7 are being actively updated. I hate 10.7 and have stuck with 10.6.
First generation Intel Macs were released running 10.4. First generation Intel macs can run OSX 10.7, so they are still supported. They will no longer be supported with 10.8. ~6 years.
Apple seems to roughly support hardware for at least 5 years (given that we've gone through a PPC->Intel transition AND a 32-bit to 64-bit transition in the last ~7 years, not too shabby). I hope they will keep updating 10.6 now that they are hurrying up their OS release schedules.
I understand Apple losses money to support users but something should be done. If not after a few billion lost dollars in bank accounts will create some nasty lawsuits.
Apple has been getting more serious about security for awhile (in comparison to, "we're unix, we're ok"). Sandbox, gatekeeper, removal of automatic execution, malware removal tool, etc. They need to gt a LOT better in how they respond though.
Apple clearly understands support in general though. They routinely get excellent marks on their support. See the genius bars as an example. I personally have had out of warranty macs repaired for free. My sister had an out of warranty Macbook case top replaced when it chipped. And so forth. Support is one of the big reasons to buy an Apple, imho.
With the number of machines that remain, it seems clear also that Mac users aren't using auto updates. What's up with that?
You're surprised that users dont install updates? Or choose to skip updates when they are offered? You must be new here... (and by here, I mean, anywhere) This is hardly a problem that is unique to mac users or even ignorant users.
You're right, but you left out why they went in this direction.
Apple is trying to support users with no PC. They keep talking about the "Post-PC" era. They have customers (although perhaps a small number) who have an iPhone and iPad, but no laptop/desktop and an Airport (or Time Capsule, same thing with hard drive). They aren't to where this is a fully working platform yet (for instance you need a PC to initialize the phone), but the iCloud road map and what they roll out point in this direction.
You no longer need a PC to initialize the phone/ipad/ipod as of iOS 5.0. I absolutely agree that the direction they're headed--the post-PC or non-PC-centric world. Unfortunately they have primarily come at it from the angle of dumbing down the desktop, not making the non-PC devices more powerful.
One of the puzzle pieces was making a configuration client for the iPhone/iPad to configure the Airport. It further makes sense that there would be only one program / interface across both platforms, so OSX got the same thing. I suspect they realized the left out and dumbed down features, hence leaving the old version around, I suspect the next version will put many of them back on both iOS and OSX devices.
Here is where I disagree. I DON'T think it makes sense to have only one program for all platforms. More exactly, I don't agree that there should be only on interface for each platform. Gmail is one program that displays differently (with different capabilities) on a phone, a tablet, and a desktop.
One of the interesting things from talking to Apple folks is they feel, for most users, IPv6 should need no configuration. For instance there's no way in OSX to configure IPv6 DHCP on or off, if the RA says to do DHCP, it does, if not, it doesn't. For the Airport it should look for RA's from the ISP, if they are there it should do DHCP (probably with Prefix Delegation), if that works it should configure IPv6 on the LAN side. Apple will likely have to make a nod to static addressing and provide manual configuration; but the defaults will be automatic configuration when available I'm sure. I suspect this will come out with the next rev of hardware (since they don't do new software features on older hardware for Airports), and actually make IPv6 as easy as well, doing nothing for Apple users with the newest hardware.
I have never played with IPv6, but is this true? In my Snow Leopard settings for Adapter TCP/IP there's an IPv6 section to configure "Automatically", "Manually", or "Off".
I like Spaces better in Lion. At first I was annoyed that my precious 4x4 grid was now a line, but I like better how the spaces and windows within them are combined with exposed and displayed.
I mostly miss the "all windows" expose view (since each application's windows are now stacked on top of each other). I find it--for me--less functional. I no longer use the Spaces part, but one of my colleagues says the ordering of his Screen desktops frequently gets changed around. Not sure exactly of the details.
I agree with iCal being terrible though, and the odd shift from Save As to Duplicate is rough - but that one I can chalk up to my having been used to how things are, and I'm willing to ride out that change to see if it's really better. The CS person in me thinks it is better because it's Apple baking version control into every document, which is pretty compelling if support becomes widespread.
I'm willing to give it a chance as well. The versioning is a nice feature, I agree. Can't say I've used it a single time other than when testing.
I completely agree.
I upgraded my Mac Pro at work to Lion and can't say there's a single changed feature that I prefer over Snow Leopard. Not one thing. Mission Control is a regression, the removal of Save As / Duplicate is just confusing and annoying, Launchpad utterly useless, buggy (time machine backups, notably), annoying flat, monochrome, greyscale interface change throughout the system (finder sidebars, itunes, etc). Address Book is awful. iCal is awful. It's possible there's SOME new feature I prefer, but I can't think of one (iPhoto/Address book iCloud support is nice, but hardly an "OS" feature).
My personal laptop is just shy of 5 years old (still running very well after getting the Nvidia bug fixed) and I had been really hoping to upgrade when the next revision of laptops come out. I'm really not sure I want to at this point...
I'm sure the functionality will be added back in.
Airport Utility 6.0 follows the recent trend of Apple making all of their software neutered versions of iOS versions (Lion to a certain extent, iCal, Address Book, etc)--so the comments here http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/30/apple-releases-redesigned-ios-like-airport-utility-6-0-and-an-airport-base-station-bug-fix/. So, they went from a useful program with a standard interface (old version) to one with a pretty UI that lacks major features.
The trend has been for Apple to add MOST features back in at some point, so hopefully it continues. I can't imagine Airport Utility will stay this way forever.
I just keep an old binary around...
I remember in at least one version of OS/2 that I used to run (2? Warp?), if you sorted the driver lines in your CONFIG.SYS alphabetically, your boot time would improve dramatically.
I loved OS/2 back in the day.