I recently read a good article that alludes to the whole Mac vs. Windows thing and the author had an excellent quote:
"After a week with a Windows machine I get the feeling that this system is designed by people who know a lot about computers. Macs, on the other hand, seem to be designed by people who know a lot about people."
That pretty much sums it up right there for me. Apple will continue to appeal to those who like machines designed with a person in mind while Windows users will tend to want something that pushes technology boundaries whether that's useful or not. Any Mac user who gripes about Windows having a lousy interface is missing the point of being a Windows user. Any Windows user who gripes about Apple's technology lagging is missing the point of being a Mac user. I prefer the latter, but that's me. I find the real key to productivity is not cutting-edge technology but logical design.
NEWS MEDIA: Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
MICROSOFT: Here's one -- nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: What?
MICROSOFT: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: Here -- he says he's not dead!
MICROSOFT: Yes, he is.
OSS: I'm not!
NEWS MEDIA: He isn't.
MICROSOFT: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
OSS: I'm getting better!
MICROSOFT: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
NEWS MEDIA: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
OSS: I don't want to go in the cart!
MICROSOFT: Oh, don't be such a baby.
NEWS MEDIA: I can't take him...
OSS: I feel fine!
MICROSOFT: Oh, do us a favor...
NEWS MEDIA: I can't.
MICROSOFT: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
NEWS MEDIA: Naaah, I got to go on to HP -- they've lost two today.
MICROSOFT: Well, when is your next round?
NEWS MEDIA: Thursday.
OSS: I think I'll get more server marketshare.
MICROSOFT: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
OSS: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[bonk!]
MICROSOFT: Ah, thanks very much.
NEWS MEDIA: Not at all. This will make a great story!
MICROSOFT: Right.
[clop clop]
NEWS MEDIA: Who's that then?
MICROSOFT: I don't know.
NEWS MEDIA: Must be Apple.
MICROSOFT: Why?
NEWS MEDIA: He hasn't got viruses all over.
Remarkable, really, considering how long ago Apple died and they based OS X on BSD (or a flavor thereof.) For dead technology on top of dead technology, it sure looks pretty lively to me.:^)
Microsoft needs to learn the Latin phrase tu quoque which translates as "you're another." The term is used in the study of formal logic and refers to a logical fallacy, that is, defending oneself by pointing out the weaknesses of another. Of course, if I own a company that produces a shoddy operating system with consistently lousy security and a puzzling number of thoughtless or bad decisions in terms of general design, pointing out the same in a competitor does absolutely nothing about my own shortcomings. However, this is a wonderfully effective rhetorical technique for throwing the attention off my problems and on to yours.
So, even if Linux was the most bug-ridden operating system with massive security holes, it wouldn't even matter. It certainly doesn't excuse one of the largest and most powerful software companies on the planet, i.e., one that can marshal a massive amount of resources and money to produce respectable software, from the ridiculous numbers of security issues and bugs that arise in almost every product they release.
The key behind the patent seems to be (from the summary--the actual link doesn't seem to be working) that the user types the master password into the same space where the original password went. Current keychains use a separate dialog box.
Apple's Keychain doesn't work that way, however. It handles the login/password seamlessly behind-the-scenes so that once you've entered a login and password (and confirm that Keychain should handle it in the future) the login happens without presenting the user with a login panel at all. However different the UI implementation is, it seems to me that the basic concept is the same and I'm not sure why any company (at this point) should be awarded a patent for it.
Lately, it seems that CNet and ZDNet have both learned a good lesson: write up some half-assed piece crticial of Apple and you'll get tons of hits. I have no plan to look at this article and am contemplating simply removing both sites from my bookmarks, especially since ZDNet's embarrassingly amateurish Windows-apologist "How to you Like Dem Apples" article. It's really not worth it to play into this little click-through game they have going. I go to tech sites to be informed, not to be emotionally charged up over badly researched opinion-mongering masquerading as journalism. Worthless.
Why does Slashdot post Star Wars stories when there are no Star Wars fans around here? All I see are a bunch of whiners bellyaching about how some esoteric aspect of the movies has been tweaked and how that somehow portends the entirety of human civilization as we know it coming to screeching halt.
I've just been awarded a patent on posting responses to technology and computer-related issues on Internet message boards and forums. Anyone posting here, please contact me immediately so we can settle your violation of my patent out of court.
This simmering OS X vs. Linux thing that seems to have emerged lately (as evidenced by more articles like the one posted) humors me and bothers me. Mac users and Linux users should band together against the common foe. Need I name names?:^)
I'd hate to see users of two fantastic operating systems like OS X and Linux turn into bickering opponents not unlike the factious Judean liberation groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
IMO, there's more than enough room for lots of operating systems out there. I hope some of you posting comments favoring one or the other can keep the comments purely at a technical, respectful and impersonal level.
check out the poster's previous comments--some trolling
You're fucking kidding, right? I did check out the poster's previous comments. Two comments were modded as "troll" but that's nothing given that overwhelmingly the rest were "informative" and "insightful" and "interesting." I've had comments mis-modded as "troll" too. It's hardly something to judge anyone by.
Anyway, Bi()hazard, that was one of the best posts I've ever read on Slashdot--one of the few times I've felt the urge to drag-and-drop a post to my desktop to keep. If you do have a link available to the article you cited, I'd love to read it (assuming it's available online somewhere.)
Also, Control-d now selects the dock and allows for keyboard navigation rather than getting sent to the app you want it to be sent to (such as terminal). I haven't figured out how to turn this off, but you can work around it by using the option key in addition to the control key (so Control-Option-d instead of just Control-d).
That was available in Jaguar too although the default key-combos were Control+Fkey. I don't have Panther yet so I don't know if you can turn it off or not, but you can in Jaguar (although I leave it on as keyboard navigation can sometimes be preferable.) In Jaguar, it was located in System Preferences->Mouse and Keyboard control panel. Check out the Full Keyboard Access tab (assuming it's also there in Panther.)
i find the fast user switching animation a bit gratuitous though.
Probably it is, but it seems to me that the massive gasp and cheers of approval from the audience when Steve Jobs first demonstrated it publicly made it all worthwhile.
Those of you who know the old saying about the camel gettings its nose under the tent know that getting the government involved in legislating the Internet is a bad idea, even if it's for an apparently good reason. I hope this bill fails miserably. My email programs filter out spam for me just fine. I want technology to do my fighting for me, not some airheaded tech-clueless legislator who will use this bill as a justification for pursuing some other "great idea" about how the Internet should work in the future. This is a bad precendent, I think. I hope it takes a massive nosedive.
I love being modded "redundant." Like anyone on Slashdot has the time to read every single post to a given topic before posting. Redundant ought to be used per-poster, i.e., if I post the same thing twice or the same thoughts worded differently. Modding me redundant because my comments might be similiar to someone else's is just silly.
This must be MS's response when some other company has snuck up on them as defined a standard. In this case, the "standard" is the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. Whether MS likes it or not, that's the standard (or yardstick) by which other music download devices and services will be measured. The only way MS can handle this kind of thing is fudmongering. Instead of trying to a) compete or b) comply with the standard, they have to attempt to tear it down. What's new?! It get tiresome after a while to watch the biggest company in the technology landscape perpetually play Big Bully against any innovation or new ideas. Criminy, I'm glad they don't get any of my money!
Maybe if they would sink some energy and resources into improving their pathetic WMA format, they might stand a fighting chance in a respectable manner. Instead, they choose to behave like children on a playground, calling names and pushing and shoving. This Dave Fester fellow (appropriate name, IMO) ought to be ashamed of himself for being the mouthpiece for this kind of childish attitude.
Is there a market for PVPs when even the cheapest laptops can play movies? I'd much rather buy a low-end laptop if I wanted the ability to play movies on the go (which I never have wanted, btw) than blow a bunch of cash on a machine that can only play movies. IMO, there is a very limited market for this.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't it seem odd that we're all expecting the cable companies to allow competition on a physical network that they built and own?
Networks which, of course, use bandwidth and airwaves that are owned by the public. So who owns what exactly? None of these companies are cutting me a check for using my airwaves. Doesn't it seem odd that cable companies expect to use my airwaves to make a profit? I wasn't even asked.
Besides, in many cases with projects like this built and owned by coporations, they are subsidized by public money in one way or another--if not directly, then indirectly. I wouldn't doubt if it were the case here too.
Should Microsoft's software be treated any differently than, say, automobiles?
I'm no fan of MS, but sure, software should be treated differently than automobiles, primarily because people's lives aren't typically at risk from poorly written software (and yes, I can think of instances to the contrary, but this is in general.) However, I see no reason why MS shouldn't be held accountable for financial losses caused by unreasonable security lapses in their software. I'm sure that if MS were looking at footing the bill across the country for all that IS overtime to patch software and fend off viruses, then they might invest a little more time and resources in their products before releasing them.
The problem with that is that, of course, no software is perfectly secure, but there ought to be at least a minimal expectation. After a certain point, one has to wonder what we gain by letting MS off the hook.
If a person is sharing files directly off their hard drive and they have a "read me" or "terms of service" file posted with the file collection, can a person legally specify the usage of their machine to protect their property and machine from similar RIAA abuses? I don't suppose one has to be an organization or business to establish a terms of service by which one must abide before using any services or information the machines has available. This is very curious. If there are any posters here at Slashdot with a better than passing understanding of how all this works, please share your insights about this. I love the irony that the same TOS shenanigans that so many companies use to fuck over their customers can also be employed to protect people from the RIAA.
I've got no problem with capped bandwidth, but Comcast ought to at least have enough integrity to offer tiered service. I don't use my broadband connection for anywhere near the $50+ I pay per month for it. I know people who use it nonstop for online gaming, video and music and I'm sure, in a fair world, I would pay considerably less than those folks. So, if Comcast and others want to insist on caps, they need to do it right and let those of us who use less pay less. I suspect that's why they don't want to get into specific usage limits. If they did, people like me could start computing the "value" of what they use it for and start insisting on lower, more reasonable pricing. Wouldn't want that!
If I had mod points today, you'd get one of them. You've summed up beautfully the thoughts that go through my head occasionally.
In 1986, an art dept. in my high school got a Macintosh. At the time, my two areas of interest were computers and art. For computers, I was heavily into programming the old TRS-80s and felt that all that cryptic knowledge I'd earned was a bit of a badge of honor. I would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy (if not encourage) that sense amongst my peers that I possessed some otherworldly knowledge. A lot of my fellow students used to hold me in high regard for this reason and on more than one occasion was treated rather special because of this perception (and that treatment sometimes came from teachers too!)
So, you can imagine how horrified and annoyed I was when I walked into my art class one day and saw this cutesy little Macintosh sitting there and two... football players actually working on it, creating art and printing! How dare these morons--the fucking clueless neanderthals--achieve the same thing I had worked so hard for on less user-friendly machines.
Believe it or not, that killed my interest in computers for many years and I remember having a real problem with Macs specifically until my second year in college.
Needless to say, I eventually got over that and came to grips with exactly what you're talking about--that my knowledge, no matter how hard-won--was obsolete suddenly. I now fully appreciate that good design on a computer's interface means catering exactly to how human beings work (even neanderthal athletes) and not guys like me (or most people on Slashdot.) And, like it or not, it's only "dumbed down" because it looks like that to us. To the rest of the world, that "dumbed down" means the computer is suddenly more useful that it used to be, and that's a very good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"After a week with a Windows machine I get the feeling that this system is designed by people who know a lot about computers. Macs, on the other hand, seem to be designed by people who know a lot about people."
That pretty much sums it up right there for me. Apple will continue to appeal to those who like machines designed with a person in mind while Windows users will tend to want something that pushes technology boundaries whether that's useful or not. Any Mac user who gripes about Windows having a lousy interface is missing the point of being a Windows user. Any Windows user who gripes about Apple's technology lagging is missing the point of being a Mac user. I prefer the latter, but that's me. I find the real key to productivity is not cutting-edge technology but logical design.
NEWS MEDIA: Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
[clang]
Bring out your dead!
MICROSOFT: Here's one -- nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: What?
MICROSOFT: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
OSS: I'm not dead!
NEWS MEDIA: Here -- he says he's not dead!
MICROSOFT: Yes, he is.
OSS: I'm not!
NEWS MEDIA: He isn't.
MICROSOFT: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
OSS: I'm getting better!
MICROSOFT: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
NEWS MEDIA: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
OSS: I don't want to go in the cart!
MICROSOFT: Oh, don't be such a baby.
NEWS MEDIA: I can't take him...
OSS: I feel fine!
MICROSOFT: Oh, do us a favor...
NEWS MEDIA: I can't.
MICROSOFT: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
NEWS MEDIA: Naaah, I got to go on to HP -- they've lost two today.
MICROSOFT: Well, when is your next round?
NEWS MEDIA: Thursday.
OSS: I think I'll get more server marketshare.
MICROSOFT: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do?
OSS: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[bonk!]
MICROSOFT: Ah, thanks very much.
NEWS MEDIA: Not at all. This will make a great story!
MICROSOFT: Right.
[clop clop]
NEWS MEDIA: Who's that then?
MICROSOFT: I don't know.
NEWS MEDIA: Must be Apple.
MICROSOFT: Why?
NEWS MEDIA: He hasn't got viruses all over.
Deepest apologies to the Pythons.
Remarkable, really, considering how long ago Apple died and they based OS X on BSD (or a flavor thereof.) For dead technology on top of dead technology, it sure looks pretty lively to me. :^)
So, even if Linux was the most bug-ridden operating system with massive security holes, it wouldn't even matter. It certainly doesn't excuse one of the largest and most powerful software companies on the planet, i.e., one that can marshal a massive amount of resources and money to produce respectable software, from the ridiculous numbers of security issues and bugs that arise in almost every product they release.
Politicians love tu quoque, by the way.
Apple's Keychain doesn't work that way, however. It handles the login/password seamlessly behind-the-scenes so that once you've entered a login and password (and confirm that Keychain should handle it in the future) the login happens without presenting the user with a login panel at all. However different the UI implementation is, it seems to me that the basic concept is the same and I'm not sure why any company (at this point) should be awarded a patent for it.
Just wondering.
I'd hate to see users of two fantastic operating systems like OS X and Linux turn into bickering opponents not unlike the factious Judean liberation groups in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
IMO, there's more than enough room for lots of operating systems out there. I hope some of you posting comments favoring one or the other can keep the comments purely at a technical, respectful and impersonal level.
You're fucking kidding, right? I did check out the poster's previous comments. Two comments were modded as "troll" but that's nothing given that overwhelmingly the rest were "informative" and "insightful" and "interesting." I've had comments mis-modded as "troll" too. It's hardly something to judge anyone by.
Anyway, Bi()hazard, that was one of the best posts I've ever read on Slashdot--one of the few times I've felt the urge to drag-and-drop a post to my desktop to keep. If you do have a link available to the article you cited, I'd love to read it (assuming it's available online somewhere.)
That was available in Jaguar too although the default key-combos were Control+Fkey. I don't have Panther yet so I don't know if you can turn it off or not, but you can in Jaguar (although I leave it on as keyboard navigation can sometimes be preferable.) In Jaguar, it was located in System Preferences->Mouse and Keyboard control panel. Check out the Full Keyboard Access tab (assuming it's also there in Panther.)
Probably it is, but it seems to me that the massive gasp and cheers of approval from the audience when Steve Jobs first demonstrated it publicly made it all worthwhile.
Those of you who know the old saying about the camel gettings its nose under the tent know that getting the government involved in legislating the Internet is a bad idea, even if it's for an apparently good reason. I hope this bill fails miserably. My email programs filter out spam for me just fine. I want technology to do my fighting for me, not some airheaded tech-clueless legislator who will use this bill as a justification for pursuing some other "great idea" about how the Internet should work in the future. This is a bad precendent, I think. I hope it takes a massive nosedive.
"Apple offers 1 million clues to RIAA; none taken so far."
This must be MS's response when some other company has snuck up on them as defined a standard. In this case, the "standard" is the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. Whether MS likes it or not, that's the standard (or yardstick) by which other music download devices and services will be measured. The only way MS can handle this kind of thing is fudmongering. Instead of trying to a) compete or b) comply with the standard, they have to attempt to tear it down. What's new?! It get tiresome after a while to watch the biggest company in the technology landscape perpetually play Big Bully against any innovation or new ideas. Criminy, I'm glad they don't get any of my money!
Maybe if they would sink some energy and resources into improving their pathetic WMA format, they might stand a fighting chance in a respectable manner. Instead, they choose to behave like children on a playground, calling names and pushing and shoving. This Dave Fester fellow (appropriate name, IMO) ought to be ashamed of himself for being the mouthpiece for this kind of childish attitude.
Is there a market for PVPs when even the cheapest laptops can play movies? I'd much rather buy a low-end laptop if I wanted the ability to play movies on the go (which I never have wanted, btw) than blow a bunch of cash on a machine that can only play movies. IMO, there is a very limited market for this.
Networks which, of course, use bandwidth and airwaves that are owned by the public. So who owns what exactly? None of these companies are cutting me a check for using my airwaves. Doesn't it seem odd that cable companies expect to use my airwaves to make a profit? I wasn't even asked.
Besides, in many cases with projects like this built and owned by coporations, they are subsidized by public money in one way or another--if not directly, then indirectly. I wouldn't doubt if it were the case here too.
I'm no fan of MS, but sure, software should be treated differently than automobiles, primarily because people's lives aren't typically at risk from poorly written software (and yes, I can think of instances to the contrary, but this is in general.) However, I see no reason why MS shouldn't be held accountable for financial losses caused by unreasonable security lapses in their software. I'm sure that if MS were looking at footing the bill across the country for all that IS overtime to patch software and fend off viruses, then they might invest a little more time and resources in their products before releasing them.
The problem with that is that, of course, no software is perfectly secure, but there ought to be at least a minimal expectation. After a certain point, one has to wonder what we gain by letting MS off the hook.
If a person is sharing files directly off their hard drive and they have a "read me" or "terms of service" file posted with the file collection, can a person legally specify the usage of their machine to protect their property and machine from similar RIAA abuses? I don't suppose one has to be an organization or business to establish a terms of service by which one must abide before using any services or information the machines has available. This is very curious. If there are any posters here at Slashdot with a better than passing understanding of how all this works, please share your insights about this. I love the irony that the same TOS shenanigans that so many companies use to fuck over their customers can also be employed to protect people from the RIAA.
I've got no problem with capped bandwidth, but Comcast ought to at least have enough integrity to offer tiered service. I don't use my broadband connection for anywhere near the $50+ I pay per month for it. I know people who use it nonstop for online gaming, video and music and I'm sure, in a fair world, I would pay considerably less than those folks. So, if Comcast and others want to insist on caps, they need to do it right and let those of us who use less pay less. I suspect that's why they don't want to get into specific usage limits. If they did, people like me could start computing the "value" of what they use it for and start insisting on lower, more reasonable pricing. Wouldn't want that!
In 1986, an art dept. in my high school got a Macintosh. At the time, my two areas of interest were computers and art. For computers, I was heavily into programming the old TRS-80s and felt that all that cryptic knowledge I'd earned was a bit of a badge of honor. I would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy (if not encourage) that sense amongst my peers that I possessed some otherworldly knowledge. A lot of my fellow students used to hold me in high regard for this reason and on more than one occasion was treated rather special because of this perception (and that treatment sometimes came from teachers too!)
So, you can imagine how horrified and annoyed I was when I walked into my art class one day and saw this cutesy little Macintosh sitting there and two... football players actually working on it, creating art and printing! How dare these morons--the fucking clueless neanderthals--achieve the same thing I had worked so hard for on less user-friendly machines.
Believe it or not, that killed my interest in computers for many years and I remember having a real problem with Macs specifically until my second year in college.
Needless to say, I eventually got over that and came to grips with exactly what you're talking about--that my knowledge, no matter how hard-won--was obsolete suddenly. I now fully appreciate that good design on a computer's interface means catering exactly to how human beings work (even neanderthal athletes) and not guys like me (or most people on Slashdot.) And, like it or not, it's only "dumbed down" because it looks like that to us. To the rest of the world, that "dumbed down" means the computer is suddenly more useful that it used to be, and that's a very good thing.
Straight from the Cartman school of movie review.