Err, is this actually about the Football? Nope! It's actually about the tech ads aired in the biggest slot available (the superbowl).
Now is it interesting? Probably not. But isn't Football a nerd sport? (One there are lots of stats? Baseball might be the ultimate nerd sport, but American Football has to come pretty close)
Of course if you count Chess as a sport... (I do, but hell I'm a nerd - but you knew that already)
Well even if we accept that CentOS does hurt RedHat, what can RedHat actually do about it? The GPL stops them from squashing the product (which is exactly the point of the GPL). The GPL provides CentOS with a cast-iron defence from RedHat's legal team. Even if it didn't the reaction of users if RedHat did move against CentOS would be quite something.
I'm pretty sure RedHat hate CentOS, why all the coy legal mumbo jumbo about who the upstream vendor is otherwise? But actually I see no real downside for RedHat. If you want to "learn" RedHat then CentOS is as good as the real thing (for that) and it really doesn't hurt RedHat to have more people skilled in their product.
I actually like the CentOS product a great deal - and it fills the void left by RedHat Desktop 9.
I think the point is that the record company doesn't get paid.
Do I think the RIAA is fully justified? Hell no. But the practice of offering copies of someone else's work, for free is wrong. Do I think it's AS wrong as the RIAA think it is? Nope, but it's still wrong.
I don't see claiming that the record companies charge too much and that gives people the right to "share" music isn't very defensible. If I think something is too expensive I have the option to not have it. (or buy it and moan about the cost!) I don't see I should have the option to just "share/steal" (I don't think either word really applies here, I'm just not sure what word does) it.
As I said elsewhere here, as I read her account, I'm not fully convinced about her guilt. Even if she is guilty, the punishment seems overly harsh.
Oh I'd love to think this was true - but I just can't.
I think much of the Unix Workstation market (not all) as been subsumed as PCs became more capable. Now you might argue this is largely because much more of the development being done today is in abstracted languages (Like Java or the.Net/Mono languages) and scripted languages (Ruby, Python - you know their names) and advances in compiler technology, the choice of processor is largely irrelevant. So the custom hardware aspect of the traditional Unix Workstation is much less attractive. Add to this the rise in Unix like operating systems on PCs (Linux et al) and it is hard to justify the Unix Workstation even for things that were considered core competencies.
Of couse, the Mac is really a Unix Workstation today, but I think probably needs to be considered a special case.
Ooh, I've just been thinking the EXACT same thing. Considering buying an Apple iPhone (I'm a Mac owner - I do use other computers, mostly Linux - but I do have a Windows Laptop around here somewhere) I did the arithmetic: OUCH! I would have cost me about the same as a nice new iMac.
Personally I'm thinking about a Nokia phone with an Internet package that allows me to use it "as a broadband modem" [sic] and a Nokia N810 Internet Tablet, essentially because of the "freedom" to futz with the thing. I'm not sure I really want to futz with the phone (really not cool if you mess that up) but I don't want to only have the applications they say I can have. Here in the UK I think this will actually be cheaper than an iPhone (admittedly not that much cheaper).
Again I actually think there are real advantages to having the "smart" bits of this setup in a separate box (so you can hold the phone to your head AND still read the display on the N810). Of course, this is more nerdish than an iPhone... and perhaps I'll still want santa to bring me an iPod Touch. Of course, the Nokia doesn't look geeky so I can always leave the N810 in my pocket if I don't want to come off as a doofus (I'll need to remember to keep my mouth shut too [grin]) But I also think that an N810 will be more useful for what I do (YMMV).
I don't see this - a domain name isn't a trade mark. I think people often forget it's just a bit of network technology that happens to be helpful to humans, conceptually not much different to a file name. Consider if I was called "Mr Ford", and I'd registered "ford.org" am I infringing on the Ford Motor Company's TM? Personally I don't think so, if I started selling automotive goods then I can see that would change, but otherwise no.
The other domain is being stupid (deliberately so I think). If it's just a page with AdSense stuff on in then I can't see any connection to a business that would be hurt by confusion. (actually as I see it, the exact opposite is true!)
I don't see this. If I buy a car, then take it apart duplicate all the parts in volume and start making my own cars to someone else's design, is that wrong?
OK, I'm going to assume your American (if not, just insert your country). What if I then start making those cars in China and importing them in the US undercutting the original car maker? Is that wrong?
The way she explains it, she seems like the victim here - but I'm taking what she says at face value. Even if she did do it, the size of the penalty seems totally wrong.
So do I think people have the right to "file share" - no, this isn't sharing. Technically it's not stealing either, you don't remove anything, but it is morally wrong (and should be considered a crime). I just think the RIAA are using this as an excuse for extortion.
The security model of OS X isn't in question HERE. Simply put this is how computers work in 2007, you (the user) choose to download something, you the user choose to install it, the OS prompts for a valid admin password (to make sure you are allowed to do this) and then the software is installed. If that software chooses to do something "nasty" then it can, because the user has given permission. What do you want a computer that WON'T let you install things?
Sure there is room for technical change to address this, Leopard had the beginnings of some of these changes (sandboxes) but (Like Solaris Containers - but less fully baked, don't run away trusting Leopard's Sandbox technology quite yet, it still needs work. Really these problems are about policy not the underlying technology.). But really this is a case of the security model of a "modern" (if a Unix-a-like can be called that) OS doing exactly what's expected (what the user tells it, not what's best).
Actually having seen more about this, it really should raise alarm bells in any savvy Mac user's head - the message is hard coded onto the webpage and doesn't look at all like a Quicktime message, given this the decision to download, decompress, and install is even more questionable.
Really, if this were on Windows, it would be a total non-story. Of course, many versions of Windows wouldn't require the assistance of the users. You'd be better thinking of this as malware that requires the user to infect their own machine! I know that sounds funny, but this is social engineering, making the user believe they are doing something reasonable. It's only one step up from telling the user they need to change their DNS settings to view the content and putting screen illustrations on the site to "help them". This isn't a test of the OS, you might consider it a test of human nature (or more cynically a test of Mac users) if you want to.
I find the idea that OS X is the new Windows 98 rather amusing.
No it wouldn't. The security model isn't an issue. It is the effectiveness of the social engineering - no (mainstream) OS (yes, including all the Linux distros I can think of) does this anymore securely.
So no, the percentage of infections isn't interesting at all when looking at the security model of Mac OS X.
Of course, it might say something about the users of the Mac... but really, I don't see them as much different to Windows users (they just have nicer computers ).
The point I'm making is that the small size of the Mac installed base isn't relevant here - THIS thing's spread would be low even if it targeted Windows (assuming it had the same requirements - which let's face it, means either a non-default XP setup or Vista). The number of Macs isn't an issue. The issues are:
The visibility of the site. The effectiveness of the social engineering.
That's it. We'll only see a relatively small percentage of Macs infected - and the OS isn't even a factor.
Now I'll admit that x% of the installed base of Macs is far fewer machines than x% of Windows PCs - but this is irrelevant to the spread in THIS case.
THIS Trojan does nothing to show a weakness in Mac OS X (compared to other systems in large scale use).
Of course, we're only talking about this one - which is really an social engineering issue (the user is tricked into installing it - the OS doesn't install it, the user even has to type the admin password!) a different attack could be quite different. Thus far we've not seen that on Mac OS X, that's not to say we won't - just hasn't happened yet. That happening is no more or less likely today than it was yesterday. There have been flaws in Mac OS X that could have allowed that, but the ones **we** (I mean us, not people inside Apple or people working to find such flaws in OS X for "fun or profit") know about have been patched. Is this different to Windows? Possibly only in terms of scale, that is there **may** have been fewer such flaws (you know the really nasty ones that can allow something nasty to happen on a "normal" box) or there **might** be fewer people seeking "fun or profit" on Mac OS X. Personally I think both are true, and that might explain a lot. I'm perhaps a little less inclined to think Apple fix these things **much** faster than Microsoft. Never the less the Mac is my "weapon of choice" (most of the time).
Yeah - but even this isn't true, Dell never created a market for anything. A market arises (people are buying the stuff elsewhere) and Dell ask Intel to supply it (EM64T). The amazing thing about this is don't we think Intel is already a step ahead of them?! (If Dell can figure out they need something, Intel hasn't figured this out already? - I don't think so)
No this seems like Dell starting to believe their own hype... a dangerous thing to do (ask Bill).
If Dell is anyone's puppet it's the market's - they supply what people ask for, assuming of course Microsoft and Intel have it available! The idea that either Microsoft OR Intel snap to it and create it for Dell is laughable. If it's already in their pipeline, then Dell can do a lot to get it to a lot of people (put it in their boxes) - but that's all.
Err, cool design is useful. Sure nobody needs "gee-whizz" features but that's not good design.
The new iMac is basically a story about useful design. Easy to upgrade, highly adjustable display, easy to do "stuff" with. Now why do people buy all those digital cams and camcorders? This makes them useful for 'non-geeks': brilliant.
What are we objecting to here? It's not a funky colour (it's white). Do you REALLY think that a computer has to look like a bit of test equipment?
Most "older" folks hate the cable tangle behind a PC, they hate the complex connecters (most of which you don't need anymore). They hate the system box. This is a computer as easy to live with as a lamp! Lets be honest, good design is more than "neeto" stuff, it makes the product BETTER. Who honestly enjoys the sharp edges when they upgrade their PC's RAM? Or the mess inside? Or all those cables?
Sure iMac isn't for everyone - that's why Apple make other Macs, but for many people it is a much better beast than a PC.
Why even hackers have been seen using Mac OS X! Gates's idea of design is XP - think about that for a moment.
Sorry but iMac is cool for Moms and Pops everywhere not just kid sisters! Who doesn't want to be able to find their photos, make the film they've shot watchable? Even iTunes, who's too old to enjoy music?
No matter what they shouldn't do this, it sets the most dangerous precedent - what we really don't need is Linux to become fragmented to the point that we need to run multiple distrobutions to get things done.
Also how do you enforce this - if I take SuSE and add parts of RedHat (or vice versa) can I run this stuff legally? When is a SuSE distrobution considered okay? What if I replace the kernel with a new version, or take a window manager from another distrobution is it still SuSE?
This is simply a VERY bad idea - we should resist.
In the short term there is no way. Sure the Mac faithful will go to OS X (no choice, really). I think they'll be very happy with it. Linux users, well I can't see it here's why.
Some religious reasons, Darwin is open source, but nothing else. A lot of people will find that quite unacceptable.
Buy a Mac AND he OS just to "try" - that's a big leap of faith. I suggest for most of leap too far.
Okay so where are the apps? Sure this is a short term problem, but for the moment there is little to choose between Linux and Mac OS X in terms of number of "user" apps (I'm not talking geekware here). This is getting better on Linux - probably most users could be quite happy, if they but knew it. Mac OS X is the poor relation here - classic is very poor compared to the rest of OS X.
Now in the longer term - well maybe. Mac OS X is wonderful to write for. Mac OS X is a single target. (Now, does this run under Suse - nope, but I does work on RedHat...) The user environment is to die for. Sure you have to buy a Mac, but all systems get replaced eventually.
However, there is still the religious objection (and let's get over it, there is no way Apple CAN open it up - afterall why would you need to buy a Mac?) and Linux often gets used in places where Mac OS X offers less. Servers perhaps, Mac OS X and Linux aren't so different here (okay Mac OS X has NetInfo). Of course Linux isn't standing still, and will continue to evolve in unpredictable ways.
Perhaps Linux's "ace in the hold" is GNUstep, this project aims to port the OpenStep API to Linux (and others). OpenStep is what Cocoa is based on. This would once finished) allow Mac OS X programs to be ported to Linux more easily - so maybe Linux can gain from large adoption of Mac OS X.
Me? Oh I'm convinced I used (developed for) the NeXT, I've got a Mac and love the new system.
Heh, I don't think anyone at Apple really expected the suits to buy those Key Lime iBooks. It's more a student thing I guess.
As you say most was pretty unsurprising. But that G4 PowerBook is pretty funky - as a new Mac user (since Mac OS X Server) this is great. I'll also be doing a lot of travelling and living in "digs" so I couldn't be more pleased with the PowerBook.
Does anyone have a close-up of the keyboard? Is it like the old one? Any ideas as to why it doesn't run across the whole body? (the speaker could have been moved)
I did. I am going to get a PowerBook, I just got a new job (working with WebObjects {programming - I'm not getting paid to surf!}) and this new laptop looks neeto.
As I looked at it, all I could think of was the beach scene in 2010 where the guy is typing on a Apple IIc and thought - yep that G4 PowerBook would work perfectly there - with OS X of course.
I like the simple look, and did anyone else notice that they turned the Apple logo round so with the lid open it's the right way up for the guy sitting opposite? That Steve thinks of everything! Anybody know if it still lights up? (Kinda looks like it does)
All I need now is Mac OS X, and WebObjects for same. Oh and some DVDs to watch on this sukka. Oh nearly forgot Q3A for it.
Seems very logical. Give them the hardware and all the documentation let them do with it what they will.
Also; publish the documentation online somewhere so others can port things to your hardware and make sure people can find it. This will help the open source community a great deal. Maybe host the source code on your web site and let one of them manage it for you. This will help them and you.
We only have to look at the stereotypes that have been projected onto the boy from us. We've all got him for some football hating, nerd, with no friends and only geeky-hobbies.
What the HECK is this? He could be the Quarterback on the Football team, and every cheerleader might have his picture in their room. Perhaps he's not - WE DON'T KNOW.
OUCH!
Look dude, I guess a fair number of "us" feel at least a bit like you (perhaps to a lesser degree though) but what makes you think this guy has the answer? Or come to that us? (I still wear lots of black, have few friends, read "odd stuff", spend a long time with my computer, and the rest of it)
Am I as depressed as you? No not really, I got bullied at school (quite bad actually) and sports - don't get me started on sports, but now I do okay. To be honest, I do better than okay most of the time. It's weird but a long time ago I stopped worrying about what other people 'thought", I didn't care that they thought I was a oddball, a geek and generally someone to be avoided.
These days people don't think that. If I tell people about my childhood they can't believe it. I was actually sent to a child psychologist at nine 'cos I had "no friends". It was quite an odd experience - he asked LOTS of questions, I do remember having to find words that sounded alike - weird. After which I told my mom & dad that it was quite understandable - I have a mental age of 18, I wasn't about to make friends with other 9 year olds. I guess this explains why the problem has lessened so much.
I do feel though it's an advantage now. I don't worry about what other people think, or if they agree with me or not. I have found that adults tend to be a lot more reasonable than my class mates ever were.
Perhaps your situation is different to mine, but I was told as a child with no friends: "don't worry about it - for you it's perfectly natural - they'll grow out of it". It makes me realise that if i met these people now, things would be different, because they've changed.
Sure, I'm still a bit "different" but I don't find it a problem anymore. I think you need to "give yourself permission to be different" and be happy to stand out. I hope this helps.
Slashdot Mirror
Err, is this actually about the Football? Nope! It's actually about the tech ads aired in the biggest slot available (the superbowl).
Now is it interesting? Probably not. But isn't Football a nerd sport? (One there are lots of stats? Baseball might be the ultimate nerd sport, but American Football has to come pretty close)
Of course if you count Chess as a sport... (I do, but hell I'm a nerd - but you knew that already)
For some reason even I don't understand I'd really like one of these. Maybe I miss the DEC PDP-11 from my youth too much.
Well even if we accept that CentOS does hurt RedHat, what can RedHat actually do about it? The GPL stops them from squashing the product (which is exactly the point of the GPL). The GPL provides CentOS with a cast-iron defence from RedHat's legal team. Even if it didn't the reaction of users if RedHat did move against CentOS would be quite something.
I'm pretty sure RedHat hate CentOS, why all the coy legal mumbo jumbo about who the upstream vendor is otherwise? But actually I see no real downside for RedHat. If you want to "learn" RedHat then CentOS is as good as the real thing (for that) and it really doesn't hurt RedHat to have more people skilled in their product.
I actually like the CentOS product a great deal - and it fills the void left by RedHat Desktop 9.
I think the point is that the record company doesn't get paid.
Do I think the RIAA is fully justified? Hell no. But the practice of offering copies of someone else's work, for free is wrong. Do I think it's AS wrong as the RIAA think it is? Nope, but it's still wrong.
I don't see claiming that the record companies charge too much and that gives people the right to "share" music isn't very defensible. If I think something is too expensive I have the option to not have it. (or buy it and moan about the cost!) I don't see I should have the option to just "share/steal" (I don't think either word really applies here, I'm just not sure what word does) it.
As I said elsewhere here, as I read her account, I'm not fully convinced about her guilt. Even if she is guilty, the punishment seems overly harsh.
Oh I'd love to think this was true - but I just can't.
.Net/Mono languages) and scripted languages (Ruby, Python - you know their names) and advances in compiler technology, the choice of processor is largely irrelevant. So the custom hardware aspect of the traditional Unix Workstation is much less attractive. Add to this the rise in Unix like operating systems on PCs (Linux et al) and it is hard to justify the Unix Workstation even for things that were considered core competencies.
I think much of the Unix Workstation market (not all) as been subsumed as PCs became more capable. Now you might argue this is largely because much more of the development being done today is in abstracted languages (Like Java or the
Of couse, the Mac is really a Unix Workstation today, but I think probably needs to be considered a special case.
Ooh, I've just been thinking the EXACT same thing. Considering buying an Apple iPhone (I'm a Mac owner - I do use other computers, mostly Linux - but I do have a Windows Laptop around here somewhere) I did the arithmetic: OUCH! I would have cost me about the same as a nice new iMac.
Personally I'm thinking about a Nokia phone with an Internet package that allows me to use it "as a broadband modem" [sic] and a Nokia N810 Internet Tablet, essentially because of the "freedom" to futz with the thing. I'm not sure I really want to futz with the phone (really not cool if you mess that up) but I don't want to only have the applications they say I can have. Here in the UK I think this will actually be cheaper than an iPhone (admittedly not that much cheaper).
Again I actually think there are real advantages to having the "smart" bits of this setup in a separate box (so you can hold the phone to your head AND still read the display on the N810). Of course, this is more nerdish than an iPhone... and perhaps I'll still want santa to bring me an iPod Touch. Of course, the Nokia doesn't look geeky so I can always leave the N810 in my pocket if I don't want to come off as a doofus (I'll need to remember to keep my mouth shut too [grin]) But I also think that an N810 will be more useful for what I do (YMMV).
I don't see this - a domain name isn't a trade mark. I think people often forget it's just a bit of network technology that happens to be helpful to humans, conceptually not much different to a file name. Consider if I was called "Mr Ford", and I'd registered "ford.org" am I infringing on the Ford Motor Company's TM? Personally I don't think so, if I started selling automotive goods then I can see that would change, but otherwise no.
The other domain is being stupid (deliberately so I think). If it's just a page with AdSense stuff on in then I can't see any connection to a business that would be hurt by confusion. (actually as I see it, the exact opposite is true!)
I don't see this. If I buy a car, then take it apart duplicate all the parts in volume and start making my own cars to someone else's design, is that wrong?
OK, I'm going to assume your American (if not, just insert your country). What if I then start making those cars in China and importing them in the US undercutting the original car maker? Is that wrong?
The way she explains it, she seems like the victim here - but I'm taking what she says at face value. Even if she did do it, the size of the penalty seems totally wrong.
So do I think people have the right to "file share" - no, this isn't sharing. Technically it's not stealing either, you don't remove anything, but it is morally wrong (and should be considered a crime). I just think the RIAA are using this as an excuse for extortion.
The security model of OS X isn't in question HERE. Simply put this is how computers work in 2007, you (the user) choose to download something, you the user choose to install it, the OS prompts for a valid admin password (to make sure you are allowed to do this) and then the software is installed. If that software chooses to do something "nasty" then it can, because the user has given permission. What do you want a computer that WON'T let you install things?
Sure there is room for technical change to address this, Leopard had the beginnings of some of these changes (sandboxes) but (Like Solaris Containers - but less fully baked, don't run away trusting Leopard's Sandbox technology quite yet, it still needs work. Really these problems are about policy not the underlying technology.). But really this is a case of the security model of a "modern" (if a Unix-a-like can be called that) OS doing exactly what's expected (what the user tells it, not what's best).
Actually having seen more about this, it really should raise alarm bells in any savvy Mac user's head - the message is hard coded onto the webpage and doesn't look at all like a Quicktime message, given this the decision to download, decompress, and install is even more questionable.
Really, if this were on Windows, it would be a total non-story. Of course, many versions of Windows wouldn't require the assistance of the users. You'd be better thinking of this as malware that requires the user to infect their own machine! I know that sounds funny, but this is social engineering, making the user believe they are doing something reasonable. It's only one step up from telling the user they need to change their DNS settings to view the content and putting screen illustrations on the site to "help them". This isn't a test of the OS, you might consider it a test of human nature (or more cynically a test of Mac users) if you want to.
I find the idea that OS X is the new Windows 98 rather amusing.
No it wouldn't. The security model isn't an issue. It is the effectiveness of the social engineering - no (mainstream) OS (yes, including all the Linux distros I can think of) does this anymore securely.
So no, the percentage of infections isn't interesting at all when looking at the security model of Mac OS X.
Of course, it might say something about the users of the Mac... but really, I don't see them as much different to Windows users (they just have nicer computers ).
The point I'm making is that the small size of the Mac installed base isn't relevant here - THIS thing's spread would be low even if it targeted Windows (assuming it had the same requirements - which let's face it, means either a non-default XP setup or Vista). The number of Macs isn't an issue. The issues are:
The visibility of the site.
The effectiveness of the social engineering.
That's it. We'll only see a relatively small percentage of Macs infected - and the OS isn't even a factor.
Now I'll admit that x% of the installed base of Macs is far fewer machines than x% of Windows PCs - but this is irrelevant to the spread in THIS case.
This logic is flat out wrong.
THIS Trojan does nothing to show a weakness in Mac OS X (compared to other systems in large scale use).
Of course, we're only talking about this one - which is really an social engineering issue (the user is tricked into installing it - the OS doesn't install it, the user even has to type the admin password!) a different attack could be quite different. Thus far we've not seen that on Mac OS X, that's not to say we won't - just hasn't happened yet. That happening is no more or less likely today than it was yesterday. There have been flaws in Mac OS X that could have allowed that, but the ones **we** (I mean us, not people inside Apple or people working to find such flaws in OS X for "fun or profit") know about have been patched. Is this different to Windows? Possibly only in terms of scale, that is there **may** have been fewer such flaws (you know the really nasty ones that can allow something nasty to happen on a "normal" box) or there **might** be fewer people seeking "fun or profit" on Mac OS X. Personally I think both are true, and that might explain a lot. I'm perhaps a little less inclined to think Apple fix these things **much** faster than Microsoft. Never the less the Mac is my "weapon of choice" (most of the time).
Yeah - but even this isn't true, Dell never created a market for anything. A market arises (people are buying the stuff elsewhere) and Dell ask Intel to supply it (EM64T). The amazing thing about this is don't we think Intel is already a step ahead of them?! (If Dell can figure out they need something, Intel hasn't figured this out already? - I don't think so)
No this seems like Dell starting to believe their own hype... a dangerous thing to do (ask Bill).
If Dell is anyone's puppet it's the market's - they supply what people ask for, assuming of course Microsoft and Intel have it available! The idea that either Microsoft OR Intel snap to it and create it for Dell is laughable. If it's already in their pipeline, then Dell can do a lot to get it to a lot of people (put it in their boxes) - but that's all.
Err, cool design is useful. Sure nobody needs "gee-whizz" features but that's not good design.
The new iMac is basically a story about useful design. Easy to upgrade, highly adjustable display, easy to do "stuff" with. Now why do people buy all those digital cams and camcorders? This makes them useful for 'non-geeks': brilliant.
What are we objecting to here? It's not a funky colour (it's white). Do you REALLY think that a computer has to look like a bit of test equipment?
Most "older" folks hate the cable tangle behind a PC, they hate the complex connecters (most of which you don't need anymore). They hate the system box. This is a computer as easy to live with as a lamp! Lets be honest, good design is more than "neeto" stuff, it makes the product BETTER. Who honestly enjoys the sharp edges when they upgrade their PC's RAM? Or the mess inside? Or all those cables?
Sure iMac isn't for everyone - that's why Apple make other Macs, but for many people it is a much better beast than a PC.
Why even hackers have been seen using Mac OS X! Gates's idea of design is XP - think about that for a moment.
Sorry but iMac is cool for Moms and Pops everywhere not just kid sisters! Who doesn't want to be able to find their photos, make the film they've shot watchable? Even iTunes, who's too old to enjoy music?
No matter what they shouldn't do this, it sets the most dangerous precedent - what we really don't need is Linux to become fragmented to the point that we need to run multiple distrobutions to get things done.
Also how do you enforce this - if I take SuSE and add parts of RedHat (or vice versa) can I run this stuff legally? When is a SuSE distrobution considered okay? What if I replace the kernel with a new version, or take a window manager from another distrobution is it still SuSE?
This is simply a VERY bad idea - we should resist.
In the short term there is no way. Sure the Mac faithful will go to OS X (no choice, really). I think they'll be very happy with it. Linux users, well I can't see it here's why.
Some religious reasons, Darwin is open source, but nothing else. A lot of people will find that quite unacceptable.
Buy a Mac AND he OS just to "try" - that's a big leap of faith. I suggest for most of leap too far.
Okay so where are the apps? Sure this is a short term problem, but for the moment there is little to choose between Linux and Mac OS X in terms of number of "user" apps (I'm not talking geekware here). This is getting better on Linux - probably most users could be quite happy, if they but knew it. Mac OS X is the poor relation here - classic is very poor compared to the rest of OS X.
Now in the longer term - well maybe. Mac OS X is wonderful to write for. Mac OS X is a single target. (Now, does this run under Suse - nope, but I does work on RedHat...) The user environment is to die for. Sure you have to buy a Mac, but all systems get replaced eventually.
However, there is still the religious objection (and let's get over it, there is no way Apple CAN open it up - afterall why would you need to buy a Mac?) and Linux often gets used in places where Mac OS X offers less. Servers perhaps, Mac OS X and Linux aren't so different here (okay Mac OS X has NetInfo). Of course Linux isn't standing still, and will continue to evolve in unpredictable ways.
Perhaps Linux's "ace in the hold" is GNUstep, this project aims to port the OpenStep API to Linux (and others). OpenStep is what Cocoa is based on. This would once finished) allow Mac OS X programs to be ported to Linux more easily - so maybe Linux can gain from large adoption of Mac OS X.
Me? Oh I'm convinced I used (developed for) the NeXT, I've got a Mac and love the new system.
Yes - The clock is back in the bar. (getting drunk perhaps?)
Heh, I don't think anyone at Apple really expected the suits to buy those Key Lime iBooks. It's more a student thing I guess.
As you say most was pretty unsurprising. But that G4 PowerBook is pretty funky - as a new Mac user (since Mac OS X Server) this is great. I'll also be doing a lot of travelling and living in "digs" so I couldn't be more pleased with the PowerBook.
Does anyone have a close-up of the keyboard? Is it like the old one? Any ideas as to why it doesn't run across the whole body? (the speaker could have been moved)
I did. I am going to get a PowerBook, I just got a new job (working with WebObjects {programming - I'm not getting paid to surf!}) and this new laptop looks neeto. As I looked at it, all I could think of was the beach scene in 2010 where the guy is typing on a Apple IIc and thought - yep that G4 PowerBook would work perfectly there - with OS X of course. I like the simple look, and did anyone else notice that they turned the Apple logo round so with the lid open it's the right way up for the guy sitting opposite? That Steve thinks of everything! Anybody know if it still lights up? (Kinda looks like it does) All I need now is Mac OS X, and WebObjects for same. Oh and some DVDs to watch on this sukka. Oh nearly forgot Q3A for it.
Seems very logical. Give them the hardware and all the documentation let them do with it what they will.
Also; publish the documentation online somewhere so others can port things to your hardware and make sure people can find it. This will help the open source community a great deal. Maybe host the source code on your web site and let one of them manage it for you. This will help them and you.
Nice effort! (Who is it you work for?)
And this is how you get your kicks? How sad.
I have to say I totally agree.
We only have to look at the stereotypes that have been projected onto the boy from us. We've all got him for some football hating, nerd, with no friends and only geeky-hobbies.
What the HECK is this? He could be the Quarterback on the Football team, and every cheerleader might have his picture in their room. Perhaps he's not - WE DON'T KNOW.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
OUCH! Look dude, I guess a fair number of "us" feel at least a bit like you (perhaps to a lesser degree though) but what makes you think this guy has the answer? Or come to that us? (I still wear lots of black, have few friends, read "odd stuff", spend a long time with my computer, and the rest of it) Am I as depressed as you? No not really, I got bullied at school (quite bad actually) and sports - don't get me started on sports, but now I do okay. To be honest, I do better than okay most of the time. It's weird but a long time ago I stopped worrying about what other people 'thought", I didn't care that they thought I was a oddball, a geek and generally someone to be avoided. These days people don't think that. If I tell people about my childhood they can't believe it. I was actually sent to a child psychologist at nine 'cos I had "no friends". It was quite an odd experience - he asked LOTS of questions, I do remember having to find words that sounded alike - weird. After which I told my mom & dad that it was quite understandable - I have a mental age of 18, I wasn't about to make friends with other 9 year olds. I guess this explains why the problem has lessened so much. I do feel though it's an advantage now. I don't worry about what other people think, or if they agree with me or not. I have found that adults tend to be a lot more reasonable than my class mates ever were. Perhaps your situation is different to mine, but I was told as a child with no friends: "don't worry about it - for you it's perfectly natural - they'll grow out of it". It makes me realise that if i met these people now, things would be different, because they've changed. Sure, I'm still a bit "different" but I don't find it a problem anymore. I think you need to "give yourself permission to be different" and be happy to stand out. I hope this helps.
Good God! Was I supposed to stop when I was 12? I'm building an X-Wing (the big one) and I'm 32. Flipping heck!