Yeah, except for the fact that the post I was replying to specifically was talking about the differences between Winelib and real Windows (under something such as VMware).
So actually, it had direct relevance to the parent post as well as direct relevance to the topic at hand.
This message on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but I wanted to thank the anonymous coward for coming to my defense, and point out that you and whoever moderated the message offtopic were the ones who apparently can't read.
I am posting this with karma bonus turned off so that it doesn't make it's way to the top of the discusson needlessly. Maybe I should just stop posting to Slashdot altogether. I held out for years believing, but apparently there's just as many morons who read Slashdot as there are in the real world. Quite a sad picture for a site that should be for the geekiest of geeks.
I recently ran into a problem where putting a grouped radio button (even if that group is one single button) as a sibling of a window with WS_EX_CONTROLPARENT style.
When the Radio button is clicked, the Microsoft window procedure attempts to find the sibling radio buttons by cycling through in a way similar to the tab order. Unfortunately, it traverses through controls that are children of the control parent window (their nephews?) and at the end of that list it does not start at the very beginning but instead loops back to the beginning of the list.
Because of this, the code enters an infinite loop looking for its siblings which it will never find. It never finds itself either!
(Un)fortunately, Wine does not exactly duplicate this behavior.
However, considering the behavior has never been fixed and exists in all Win32 implementations, it must be that way for some reason. Of course, unless anyone can come up with an example of an application that works worse under Wine because of it, it's not a bug.
Oh please. Yeah, let's all cower in fear of Microsoft. Let's stop what we're doing because Microsoft might not like it. Let's always worry about being sued.
It might be a very real possibility, but it's one you should never worry about, just be aware of. It's as bad as terrorism, it only works if the target becomes terrified.
Re:Hard to damage tiles?
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is all well and good, except that the tiles just got replaced with better ones a few years ago. In fact, most of the shuttle (except the airframe) was replaced. If anything, it's showing all the problems of a first generation overhaul, not of a tried and tested vehicle.
+3 Informative? My ass. How about -1 Go read up on it before posting with bold turned on to emphasize the red herrings you lay down.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good people working for NASA and that they will try to figure out what went wrong. Contrary to the sensationalist crap that RodeoBoy spewed into Slashdot, each of those articles (to which he linked) pointed out that NASA is being very cautious and is making sure to judge all the evidence and doesn't want anyone (especially the ill-informed public) to start drawing premature conclusions. It would be a great disservice to the crew if we did not learn from this horrible tradgedy. NASA doesn't "want the public to believe" anything. In fact, they want the public to believe nothing. Instead, they'd like to look at the facts and leave unfounded beliefs out of it. Please be kind and give the investigation team a chance to at least bring some good out of this.
Disclaimer: The company I work for has contracts with NASA. I work down the road from Langely Research Center. I am not involved (even indirectly) with the investigation.
Actually, you've inadvertantly stumbled upon an excellent point.
No code is perfect to begin with. The BSD stack is still improved from time to time. The BSD stack that companies folded into their code years ago has since had some major changes and the companies haven't bothered to take many of those changes into account.
Had they been required by license (GPL) to keep the code open, then it could be fixed by other people. Instead, the implementation has languished. This in fact is one of Stallman's great resons for keeping all code free.
However, the reality of it is that our current environment still favors closed source software. With any luck, people will slowly start to wake up and realize that source code needs to be open for all software projects. Think about it. If it was normal to receive source with binaries, nobody would really think twice about it. It's only seen as a bad thing because it's not what Microsoft does. But the reality is that Microsoft has a business model that works well for them, a giant monopoly. The reason their competitors fall on their asses is because they are trying to play as if they were MS, which they are not. It's not impossible to compete with Microsoft, it's just impossible to compete head-on.
If you don't agree with my opinion, then state why instead of accusing me of being an Apple troll.
Okay, here's a list of reasons why OSX is not FAR SUPERIOR to Windows:
Well, still so much hostility I see.
1. Why should I have to drag ANYTHING to eject or disconnect a mounted drive? That is stupid and here's why: It's NOT OBVIOUS. Why can't I just press the button on the cd-rom drive like a normal human being? Oh, now you're going to tell me that the new G4's have an eject button. Great! What about the guy with the NFS Share that got deleted below?? In Windows, you right-click and choose Disconnect. In Windows, you right-click something to get a list of available options. This makes too much sense for backwards ass Mac Users.
You don't have to drag anything to unmount a drive. Aside from the traditional drag and drop method you can also bring up the context (what you call right-click) menu and select Eject. You can also click the object to select it and use the Eject choice from the file menu which is accessible (like the right-click menu), but more importantly visible, at all times. If those methods aren't enough, most modern Macs do have an eject button in one form or another as you noted.
2. The Dock. It's too big and it's a waste of cpu time.
Actually, I like the huge Dock. Of course, I also like the big NeXT Dock that it comes from, so apparently there is at least some element of personal preference here.
3. It's slow. Don't lie to me I've tried it plenty of times.
This is very subjective. I can say without lying that the Dual G4-1Ghz I use at work is no slouch at all. My G4-500 on the other hand is showing its age, but that hardly has anything to do with the operating system. I personally feel it is smoother than Windows or Linux on equivalent x86 hardware, but it's very hard to prove something like this one way or the other. And benchmarks are only sure to lead you further astray. To me, unless a system is slow to the point of being unusable, it's plenty fast.
4. The Dock supports task switching from the keyboard, but incredibly, only in the order that applications appear in the dock. Which is next to useless. - The Reg Task switching in Windows is easy, Alt+Tab to go forwards, Alt+Shift+Tab to go backwards.
You didn't even describe the Microsoft Windows cycling behavior properly. I remember learning of this feature years ago (back when I was a Windows 3.1 and OS/2 user and hated Macs). It's not behavior that can be easily described in an understandable way. The basics of it are that Alt-Tab will go forward through the cycle, and alt-shift-tab will go backward through the cycle (so long as you always continue to hold down alt). Whenever you release alt to complete it, the order of applications in the cylce is actually changed such that Alt-Tab will take you to the previous application. Useful? Yeah, you bet, once you get the hang of it it's great! But you can hardly say that simply cycling through an unchanging list is not easy or is useless. It works just fine and you always know which way you are going. Pressing Cmd-Tab will always cycle you towards the right (forward) in the dock, and Cmd-Shift-Tab will always cycle you to the left (backward).
5. The folder browser shows you items inside of a folder when you expand a folder instead of just showing you the contents on the right pane.
Again, another item where there is an element of personal preference. I have found the Mac behavior to be quite intuitive, even though I was used to the Windows way. If you want to limit your view to the contents of one folder, then double click it. If you need a quicker way to navigate through many folders, try the NeXT-derived browse mode.
6. And, of course, limited support without third-party software for multi-button mice.
The right mouse button on my microsoft trackball works just fine. The scrollwheel also works quite well. Anything more than that requires third party software on Windows as well as Mac. I personally use it without third party software on my Mac for the same reason I use it without third party software on Windows, I simply don't require the extra functionality above and beyond what was already provided by the OS.
Far Superior my ass, more like Grossly Inferior. And that's just the GUI nevermind the fact that it's tied to proprietary hardware and Apple fakes all of their benchmarks to make it seem like Photoshop runs quicker or something (it doesn't, I have proof, if you want it let me know).
I don't know what to say to this. For me speed is a non-issue anyway, but the reality is the numbers can swing any way you want them to. And yes, you're right. Apple does use the numbers that make them look best.
I can't even believe all of the hostility towards Apple and Apple users.
Oh, and Windows users aren't supposed to take offense at the average small minded Mac users' passive-aggressive statements like The Apple comes with an actual GUI far superior to Microsoft Windows...??? Yeah, you read Slashdot a whole lot and still think that's not a TROLL? Good one.
Well actually no. I don't expect anyone to take offense over something as silly as OS choice. Why should I? I'm not offended by your statements against the Macintosh. Your tone of voice offends me, but not your statements. I believe I have shown that many of your statements are incorrect (except a few cases where there are elements of personal preference).
...someone might actually own something that works better.
Umm, yeah as we've seen OSX works a lot better. It works so much better that a whole 3% of the worlds desktop computer users use it on a daily basis.
Err, sorry, that statement I made did quite reek of flamebait.:-(
In my opinion, OS X has a much more consistent and usable interface than Microsoft Windows. When using it I tend to find that I can figure it out quite quickly. I also have noticed that the non-geek people around me seem to have an easier time with my Mac (which is of course anecdotal evidence). Drawing from the information I had available and weighing the qualities as I saw fit, I came to the conclusion that OS X has a "far superior" GUI.
Sure, some elements are debatable, but so far you've only scratched the surface and pointed out the superficial differences. Many times you seemed to redefine usability in terms of "how much is it like what I've already used? (Microsoft)".
If you want a less biased source of usability information, then I suggest you do some searching and read some papers from usability experts. The "Interface hall of shame" is always a great read now and again, as well as the hall of fame and the rest of the website around the two "halls".
Normally the best products do not have the highest market share. Often they will in fact have a quite small market share. The only thing really holding Apple back from widespread adoption is their desire to play it safe and stay within their niche market (high-end personal computer hardware).
Woah there. I've been using Apple's for less than a year. I'm not saying Apple is all great. They're just like any other company.
And just like any other company, some technicians will be nice and help you with simple stuff like this, as the parent poster saw.
Anyway, I apologize for accusing you of being rude with the tech support guy. Obviously I have no clue, it was purely a speculative thing. Obviously I was wrong and the tech support guy just didn't have good customer skills.
A good technical support rep would have realized that despite the fact that you aren't using it with Apple equipment that it was in fact quite broken. Personally, I would have tried to explain why I was sure it was a hardware problem, and failing that I would have politely asked to speak with a more knowledgeable technician.
There's no excuse for getting treatment like that from any company. Of course, taking a couple minutes to take it to an Apple authorized reseller isn't too bad of an idea anyway either, unless your neighborhood Apple dealer sucks or is too far away.
Please don't throw the Apple zealot label around. Granted I'd rather be called an Apple zealot than a Windows user any day of the week.:-)
One thing I should mention about the driver issue is that at least on Apple I can boot to single user mode and move the "kext" out of the way without having to use an antiquated filesystem (FAT32) or some (hard to find) software that writes to NTFS.
On more than one NT system I have actually had to use Linux NTFS write support to purposely screw up driver files so that Windows wouldn't load them (since the write support is not good enough to actually rename a file). Last known good didn't work since it actually got to the login prompt and it crashed when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del.
Does it help Joe blow? Well, in a way. At least if Joe Apple hoses his system by installing some rouge kext I don't have to spend extra time finding software to fix it, it's already there. That was always one of my biggest gripes about Windows-- I was actually required to go out and purchase or find extra utilities (sometimes from Microsoft competitors-- i.e. Linux) in order to fix the Windows system. Now that is pretty damn stupid!
That's understandable. I hate to see that kind of behavior from an Apple technician, but you get that everywhere.
I'm glad you got the problem fixed. I hope you reported your bad experience to Apple though. Like any company they of course have the idiots on the front line.
I called once because a brand new G4 (not mine) had what I believed to be a harddrive crash-- banging heads against side of drive upon startup.. you know.. CLANK... CLANK... CLANK.
I think I bounced through 3 levels of tech support, but all were polite, and the last level technician really knew his shit (though he seemed to be just learning OS X). Of course that was back with 10.1 where you still needed to boot 9 to get just about any maintenance done. It still helps, but for the most part now you can use 10.2 to get everything done.
Funny thing is, although my boss and I insisted the hard drive must have crashed, in fact it didn't. Apparently something screwed up the boot code for OS X (9 actualy booted fine after setting the startup disk by booting from a CD). I suspect it was an EPSON printer driver. Maybe their drivers are just as crappy on Macintosh as they are on Windows.
Anyway. So we actually wound up saving the data (using appletalk via OS 9) to my PowerMac and completely wiping the hard drive as per the technicians request. He did actually say it wasn't necessarily required, but that he'd prefer it if we just did it to make sure (as in, god knows what else the user did). As far as I know, we haven't had any more problems with it, and my guess is that there probably was some way to fix it short of a reinstall, but it was easy enough so I did it.
Hmm.. I'm gonna venture a guess here. If I compare the parent poster's writing style to yours, I think it should be fairly obvious why he got helped and you didn't.
Getting effective technical support requires some attention on the user's part. Calling up and bitching about how it doesn't work (which is what I suspect you did) and calling up and asking where to find the appropriate settings (which I suspect the parent poster did) are two very different things.
Besides, I've never had any trouble connecting to the wireless networks. An unencrypted internet-only wireless network handing out addresses via DHCP worked immediately. The name of the network scolled across the menubar as I went within range. Another network which was encrypted (WEP) was a bit trickier as I had to figure out which key to type in, but it still only took a minute or two.
The settings are right there, and are quite straightforward. If you simply didn't know they were there, then Apple tech support is great. If you call to bitch about how they suck because it worked just fine on your Linux and Windows systems then they probably don't give a fuck about you.
By the way, whatever happened? Was it actually a hardware problem? Did you eventually get the settings straight and you now just use this story as good FUD? Or are you really clueless and just trolling?
We both sound so much like those switcher ads you see everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I'm not getting any money from Apple.
From a geek perspective, what's not to like? Apple machines are real UNIX workstations, not some poorly assembled Pee-C crap. If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself. Compare the build quality of the PowerBook (just lift up the keyboard) to just about any other laptop. Compare the quality of the G4 towers to any PC. The only people making better hardware than Apple are the real big-time UNIX vendors like Sun, HP, and SGI. And they don't even attempt to come close on price whereas an Apple computer is still reasonably within the reach Joe consumer. Of course, Joe consumer has to be someone willing to fork over dough and receive a quality product in return. Some people aren't. For those people, e-machines exist and are supported by bugging the shit out of your friends to fix them.
I find it quite humorous the negative responses that I gather from a supposedly geek forum when I talk about Apple. My best friend (in real life) actually modded my original post DOWN because he was sick of hearing me talk about Apple. This same guy spent money tricking his PC out with fans and neon lights and all kinds of whiz-bang doesn't do shit but looks cool stuff. Apple? "Oh, that's too much money to spend on a computer."
Oh well, I guess if I still used a PC on a regular basis that I too would have a lot of anger. And I'd probably also direct that anger at someone who no longer sympathizes with it. In other words, I have no sympathy for a Windows user's computer problems.
Let me clarify that. At work I do help people because it's part of my job, and because I understand that they have no choice but to use Windows. So I come up with the best solutions I can, drawing on my over 18 years of experience with PCs. But for home users I can no longer justify spending my time digging up solutions to their problems or fixing all but the most basic of Windows issues. I'm not afraid to outright tell them that I feel a Mac may be a better choice when it comes time for a new computer. Hell, I think if I didn't say anything I'd be doing them an even greater disservice than if I am a little overzealous about Macs.
The Apple comes with an actual GUI far superior to Microsoft Windows
Ahem.
Do you really think you can make a statement like that and get away with it? Why don't you list the ways that the Apple GUI is far superior to Windows instead of TROLLING like that?
Well, I expected I could make a statement like that. Normally when I'm writing an opinion piece I expect to state my opinions in clear and concise language which is exactly what I did. If you don't agree with my opnion, then state why instead of accusing me of being an Apple troll.
Why am I supposed to change my writing style to be more passive agressive and avoid offending somebody? Isn't the burden normally on the reader to decide what is fact and what is opinion? Or has the world become a place now where everybody is lulled into thinking all that is said is supposed to be fact?
Yeah, I like having all of my menus at the top of the screen all of the time. OSX Rocks. Drag the CDRom to the trashcan to eject? That's a great one.
Well, despite what some people say about the menubar, I think it's an excellent idea. NeXT actually had a movable menu (not a bar), but that would probably be way too confusing for the typical Mac user to understand, not to mention PC users like yourself who would probably freak out at something like that. That and classic stuff still definitely needs a menubar, and it might have been hard to write carbon with a NeXT style menu instead of a menubar.
The trashcan problem you mentioned has never existed in OS X. I assume you just spouted off some random Apple FUD hoping to make it stick. All versions of OS X change the trashcan to an eject icon whenever you would be unmounting a file system. It changes as soon as you start dragging, so it's pretty damn obvious what you need to do. The same behavior is also used for other types of mounted filesystems including networked mounts.
Get a grip on yourself, Steve Jobs won't be your friend just because you really, really want to suck his dick.
Well, if I was gay, I probably would suck Steve Jobs's dick. Then I could say "HEY! I sucked Steve Jobs's dick!" That would be great! Do you really think he would be my frined if I did that?
Man, get a grip on yourself. I can't even believe all of the hostility towards Apple and Apple users. Well, yes I can, this is Slashdot so you get the people like yourself who can't stand the fact that someone might actually own something that works better.
Well, when I wrote this I thought that some of my points would be picked up as humor. I guess there's always one bad apple (hah, no pun intended) that spoils the bunch. Let's try this again, shall we?
First of all, no where did the guy say he specifically wanted a PC laptop. He wanted a laptop that ran Linux and didn't come with a Windows license. Thus, "Get a PowerBook" seemed like a pretty good answer to me.
All the stuff about "Look, you really want an Apple... you know you want to" was all sarcasm. I'm sorry that your persoality is so dull that you completely missed out.
I still maintain that a laptop that cannot possibly run Microsoft Windows is a definite plus. You might not agree, but I think it's a good thing. Of course, maybe I'm still just being facetious, take a guess.
No GUI design is ever going to fulfill the needs of 100% of all computer users. A lot of die-hard MacOS (< 10) users were quite surprised by OS X. Many of their complaints have since been addressed, a few still remain. I did read the article you linked to the other day, and the author does make some valid points. My impression was that he was ranting more about the Apple applications and not so much about the GUI in general. In fact, he had good things to say about the GUI in general and was mostly talking about how the Apple apps were broken because they did not follow the appropriate OS X guidelines. A lot of that I actually agree with. I'll touch on the font preview here too. Yes, I agree, it's stupid. I have no idea why a normal splitter wasn't used, it would have looked just fine.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "it's not Office". It is Office. Works just as well, usually better, than the PC version. And despite the still prevalent thought that it is not compatible with the PC version, it is. Even monster page layouts come out just fine. Unless you've used it recently, please stop spreading rumors about it. Of course Linux and FreeBSD can now run the Windows version as well (on x86 hardware). Believe me, I'm well aware of it, I followed Wine development for quite some time and even contributed some code-- some bugfixes and a minor reworking of the ASPI stuff which has since (2-3 years later) been majorly reworked. Anyway, I know the guy said he didn't need any Windows software (presumably including Office) but it never hurts to have the ability (and I jokingly gave it a half point on account of that and other factors).
Apparently you are unaware that Apple's X11 implementation actually provides the Apple OpenGL extensions and thus you can do some pretty cool rendering on it above and beyond that provided by other X implementations. Of course, I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to take the time to get your facts straight.
So apparently I am the troll for stating the facts (and adding a little bit of humor), but you are clean as a baby's bottom. In my message I didn't swear (WTF). I didn't use italics and bold type to emphasize words when my arguments didn't make any sense. I didn't call the poster a "linux shill" or a "Pee-C" user. I didn't link to articles that seemingly had something to do with my point, but in reality didn't.
In fact, I thought I made a pretty convincing argument for at least taking a look at the Apple stuff. In response I am flamed. Perhaps someone is maybe just a wee bit envious? A case of buyers remorse perhaps? I come up with valid reasons for using Apple hardware, and you get all pissy and tell me how Apple sux0rs and PCs rock.
Look, what you really want is a PowerBook. You know it, everyone here knows it. You just won't admit it.
So let's compare features. The Apple certainly has no potential whatsoever of running Microsoft Windows except through some complete emulation/virtualization software. Score one for Apple. The Apple comes with an actual GUI far superior to Microsoft Windows (not even a contest) and much more polished than your typical UNIX GUI. Score another (or a couple) for Apple.
Want more? Well, your Mac is actually capable of running Microsoft Office should you later find yourself in a bind and be REQUIRED to deal with it to put food on the table. On the plus side, you can always pirate it and you don't need Windows or Windows emulation software to run it. That's worth about a half a point (MS Office isn't that great in my book). Your Mac will also be able to run just about any open source program you want. Furthermore, Apple has now even decided to provide an official version of X11 which they have even extended to allow full access to the OpenGL extensions. That means that you can create "lickable" GUIs using the X Window System.
But even if you don't want to run Mac OS X (and trust me, you will), you can always run Linux on it. There are several very good quality PowerPC distros available. Furthermore, even if you go this route, it still doesn't preclude you from running MacOS X (or 7 8 or 9 for that matter) using the mac on linux software.
And on top of all of that you'll be supporting a company who actually understands that it is customers that drive the bottom line; a company that creates GUIs that even your mom can understand, GUIs that actually make sense and help you get on with what you are trying to do-- especially if you are a hard-core geek.
So please at least consider the Powerbook. It's a sleek machine, it's extremely solidly built (well, the 12" model I hear leaves something to be desired, but the rest are excellent). It comes with a good OS. You can run Linux on it. And you're not supporting a company that supports Microsoft. In fact, you are supporting a company that actually competes with Microsoft (on some small level). A company whose CEO made a little deal with Microsoft and got a lot of gain for very little (putting MS IE in as the default browser, BFD).
You show a great amount of technical understanding of how BIOS routines are normally called and of how linking is normally done. You have merely stated the quite obvious facts that I already know (though it's good to put them out there for the typical slashdotter).
Where you fall short is your assumption that a BIOS or HAL must be written exactly as you specify.
What stops me from writing a HAL that responds to software interrupts? What stops me from writing a BIOS that instead of using software interrupts has a jump table in a well defined memory location just like dynamic linking?
So far it's hard to say if Castle did anything wrong. They are complying with the GPL with respect to the HAL because they will release code to all customers who ask for it. Well, at least after being slashdotted they will.
I think Castle understands the GPL quite well. Remember, the GPL allows one to run GPL software on top of proprietary systems, and as evidenced by Linux it also permits running proprietary software on top of GPL systems (though without linking to GPL libraries, thus why glibc is LPGL). I think the real question here is that of separation. Is the HAL reasonably separate that it can in fact be considered like a computers BIOS? What about the other stuff? It's my understanding that RiscOS came from another platform. So essentially they are running software they had already written on top of a GPL HAL. Considering that on the original machine the HAL would actually have been the BIOS I can see a case for this.
Do I like it.. no.. it weakens the GPL. But I fear they may be in the right here.
Re:Castle may not be in violation of the GPL
on
Castle Denies GPL Breach
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't understand how you can make a cut and dried statement such as "if they link it's a violation, plain and simple." Could you please define linking? How is it different from calling routines in a BIOS?
I'll give you a hint. There is little to no technical difference. Either way you're going to be pushing some arguments on the stack or placing them in registers and calling a routine and possibly receiving a return value from that routine. There really is no technical difference between these activities.
So what makes running DOS on top of LinuxBIOS okay, but running RiscOS on top of a Linux-based HAL not okay? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an answer to this question. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it will be a non-technical one.
You hit the nail on the head: you normally want to keep your users happy. But in this case (and many cases) what purpose does it serve to make public private information?
Anytime I hear cries for doing so they seem to come from high schoolers, college students, or other people who just gobble up CNN and MSNBC.
Think: NORMAL people do not air their dirty laundry. Occasionally journalists will do this for you, but often times I think the journalists should have a lot more respect. Isn't it obvious that they're going to portray airing dirty laundry as a noble effort? I think a good percentage of the population has been brain-washed into thinking it is a noble effort when it's really just a way for them to make a buck off of you.
That also reminds me.. NBC pissed me off today. They covered the ceremonies at the Johnson Space Center and while they were still showing this nice somber scene Tom Brokaw breaks into this thing about Sadam! However, in his defense you could tell in his voice he would have preferred to give the moment more rest and remain silent. I found it extremely disrespectful, but I'm sure all the other networks did it too. After all, you have a right to know! (what they want to tell you)
I've never used one of these because normally the only thing preventing you from logging in with SSH or telnet is that your shell is not a normal one.
But guess what.. there's this neat command called "chsh" on most of these systems. Normally it is setuid root so you can change your own shell. So you just run it on a TTY (since it requires a real TTY for you to type your password) and you can change your shell to/bin/bash.
Instead of posting specific instructions, I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to discover how to create a TTY. Some hints follow.
You can run any program you can upload (including regular old shell script) as a CGI. Gee.. now what protocols can we think of kids that might allocate a TTY and allow one to use it over the network... hmmmm... But you know to run the server for this you will need an internet super server, because the server for this protocol is usually designed to work with this internet super server.
And let's see, this particular protocol's server normally runs the "login" program with a specific set of arguments upon a successful connection. Unfortunately that is no good as login must be run as root. But hmm, if you make a little program that just throws away it's arguments and runs a shell, you'd be in business. So now you can use a certain client program to connect to some port on your server which will immediately give you a shell under your acconut (yes, there is a brief window of opportunity here for someone impersonating as you). That shell is being run on a TTY, so you can actually use chsh. Assuming chsh is a setuid program as usual then you are in business-- most hosters do have SSH turned on by default.
Fair warning: Although you are not in any way breaching the security of the box, you are giving yourself easier access to things you already really had access to anyway (looking at it from the OS security model). One of my friends tried this and got dropped by his hoster. Were they right to drop him? I don't think so. Is it worth it to fight it? Not unless you want to make an example out of them and don't mind spending more than you'll ever get.
Free Software is not necessarily developed publicly. Every project is going to involve at the very least a few e-mails back and forth in private between people. And maybe that evolves into a more formal core team.
So what? Not everything is meant to be aired in public. You act as though you have some "right to know." Who or what twisted your mind into thinking that it is your "right" to stick your nose in everybody's business?
I think you need to go turn off the television and stop reading Slashdot for a while.
NOTE: Of course I was hoping someone kindly leaked the details in the comments, but I'm just curious. I don't expect to be given the details just because I have a pulse.
Well, despite being marked as flamebait I'm going to bite and take your message as sarcasm instead.
The simple fact is that in some cases natural monopolies will occur. Electric service is the classic example of this. My dad worked for a local power company for years. Trust me, the idea is NOT for them to be a non-profit. They are allowed to make a modest profit-- and they DO! It's not Microsoft or Enron style profit, but it's a good clean simple profit that keeps the shareholders happy.
A utility is in the business of providing a service for a reasonable price. If they don't have a reaosonable price, people start voting politicians out. Politicians don't like that, so they make sure the rates are reasonable. And you know what.. it has worked JUST FINE for around a hundred years! At least, until the politicians started deciding to deregulate-- which combined with some other bad decisions allowed Enron to happen.
Think about our phone systems. Great, we now have all these baby bells that have remerged into 2 or 3 big ass companies. None of them are in the business of providing services for a modest profit, they are in the business of gouging their consumers (note: not customers) for as much money as they can! It was mentioned on Slashdot not even a month ago that with the advent of digital telphone switching and IP telephony it has become a LOT cheaper to operate a telecommunications company.
So why are we still paying high prices? Yes, they are lower than years past, but given the decrease in maintenance costs they should be about 10 times lower than they are now. Well, we're still being gouged because we are willing to pay it. We pay what the MARKET WILL BEAR. Telephone service is another natural monopoly. It's easier to just have one company handle it and to simply keep a leash around their neck. This is what AT&T was-- a GOVERNMENT GRANTED monopoly whose rates WERE determined by the government. The government COULD have chosen to simply regulate the shit out of AT&T. What exactly was so bad about them? They spent that money keeping people like Dennis Ritchie, Keith Thompson, and Brian Kerningham working! Working on things that (go figure) actually paved the way for IP telephony and other modern telephone systems as well as helped the entire computing community. Specifically BECAUSE AT&T didn't want to sell it because they had the telephone monopoly, they gave it away.
Shit, they were already on track to turning the telephone system into an entirely digital one. Why? Simple, because their rates were regulated and thus if they could provide the same service for less money then they'd make KILLER profits-- at least until the regulators caught up with them.
So someone please remind me why we're supposed to deregulate everything and allow the next Enron to happen? Why can't we simply learn from history. And just so you all know.. I consider myself to be a conservative. Not the religious zombie head-up-ass conservative that is so prevalent in politics these days. But hmm.. if we think about it.. isn't it actually the democrats that wanted the deregulation? AFAIK, Clinton was praised for his great energy policy which eventually led to Enron. And Reagan didn't make many friends keeping IBM together.. but look where we are today! IBM evolved into a company that makes a killing AND helps the computing community! Isn't that what business is SUPPOSED to be about?
I can't believe you are even trying to defend this. A number of identical or near-identical letters will do absolutely nothing to influence someone aware of the duplicates. In fact, my guess is that it will aggravate him, perhaps even to the point of having a negative impact. It might work for someone who is not aware that this is possible, but I wouldn't count on it.
And if some idiot is actually stupid enough to knowingly pay attention to this crap, then they will get what will be coming to them.
I have never and will never send someone else's words with my name on them. Doing this is completely unethical and I can't believe it when groups actually suggest this. It is not enough that the other side is doing it. This is stooping way too low for my tastes.
If you don't feel strongly enough about a topic to write a quick note about it, then your opinion does not count and does not matter. Encouraging people to send out a prewritten letter in support of your propaganda is just plain wrong. I am glad the editors have gotten together to weed this stuff out.
Let's face facts, no software is ever perfect (especially in the eye of the creator if he is a good programmer). Binary software that hooks the kernel has a great potential for crashing.
The simple fact of the matter is that in this case, it has a lot to do with the fact that the component is not open source
However, with that said it's not impossible for programs to crash here and there (though the only kernel crashes I've EVER experienced were related to nVidia or Netraverse). Fortunately, if you think your distro is doing a bad job of packaging the software and/or is giving you a bunch of buggy shit... You can go use a different distro! Unlike some other platforms.
You say how Raskin is simply stating the obvious, yet still miss at least half of his point.
He's not/just/ saying you should have standard cut, copy, paste in all apps, what he is saying is that you should ONLY have cut, copy, and paste in apps unless you have a really good reason not to. In other words, resist the temptation to add hundreds of features for operations which can be done with a few basic building blocks.
At least that's what I got out of it.
Oh, and I'll tell you that at least on the Mac, keyboard shortcuts seem to make sense. Cmd-X,C,V (cut copy paste) A (select all) Z (undo) Q (Quit application W (close window). Q and W are very helpful. Putting cut copy and paste as shortcut keys is a good idea. They are all lined up on the keyboard, command is easy enough to thumb while hitting one of them (unlike that abomination that is the PC control key.. ack).
Thank you! Finally someone around here who just wants to know what the deal is instead of spouting off ill-informed opinions.
You are partially correct and partially wrong, just like the parent to my post (the great-grandparent of this post). Yes, the GPL requires that one release the source under GPL to anyone who receives a binary (in practice that means everyone, including competitors). But you have to understand that the GPL specifically stops at the linking level. That is, if I combine my code with GPL code then my code falls under the GPL. Now the LGPL is a bit different. The LGPL actually will allow me to link non-LGPL code with the LGPL library/libraries so long as the end user can replace the LGPL portion with a newer version such that he can fix bugs in it. In practice this usually turns into dynamic linking, although technically one could provide an archive file of everything except the LGPL library and allow users to link that with a newer version of the library to produce their own executable with the newer version included.
So, let's say I start a company called Orange computers and I take GNU and other free software, make it into an easy to use desktop system and sell it. The big question is: Do I have to release my code? The answer is actually REALLY simple./IF/ my code links with GPL code, yes. If I link with LGPL cdoe I must allow the LGPL portion to be replaced. If I don't link with any (L)GPL code, I can do whatever the hell I please. So let's say I improve some GNU utilities like "ls" and "find". I'd have to then release my modifications under the GPL. And if I improve glibc (the GNU LGPL C library) then I must release those modifications. But if I write software/using/ glibc or gtk or gnome libraries or any other LGPL libraries then I do NOT need to release my code. So in short I merely need to release code that I have built other code upon. I do not have to release the code for the entire system just because I included some (L)GPL software along with it. In fact, Apple (and friends)'s claims that they use BSD because they are afraid of GNU is a complete and total lie. Hmm.. does anybody remember which compiler the BSDs use? Oh yeah.. GCC which is GPL software (and the earlier versions were in fact written mostly by RMS). Indeed, the original NeXT system used GCC as well.
Did Apple release their changes to gcc? You bet! Did the fact that they built everything using gcc and included gcc along with proprietary software on the developers CD require them to release all their code as GPL? NO IT DID NOT.
So in short, I am extremely sick of the BSD bigots claiming the GPL is viral and evil and that we should all switch to BSD. I don't doubt at least some of these (supposed) BSD supporters are Microsofties trying to give the GNU project a bad name. The sad reality is that GNU is the only chance that programmers and users have left. Look at the alternatives. A bunch of people spreading lies about how the GPL requires all software to be free of cost and how the only way to make money on software is to bet the farm on Microsoft. Look at how many software developers now have to retool from VB to C# because Microsoft on a whim has decided they should move from one really really shitty quiche-eater language to a halfway decent quiche-eater language. At least with GNU you aren't fucked when MS decides they don't like you or that MS needs to change its strategy.
It's like Dennis Leary says. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife? Fuck that, you covet his wife, his car, his house, because you know what pal, he's coveting every INCH of your shit. The GPL provides a way to ENFORCE sharing of code where a company would normally consider it a potential loss of property. I just hope people wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, except for the fact that the post I was replying to specifically was talking about the differences between Winelib and real Windows (under something such as VMware).
So actually, it had direct relevance to the parent post as well as direct relevance to the topic at hand.
This message on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but I wanted to thank the anonymous coward for coming to my defense, and point out that you and whoever moderated the message offtopic were the ones who apparently can't read.
I am posting this with karma bonus turned off so that it doesn't make it's way to the top of the discusson needlessly. Maybe I should just stop posting to Slashdot altogether. I held out for years believing, but apparently there's just as many morons who read Slashdot as there are in the real world. Quite a sad picture for a site that should be for the geekiest of geeks.
Yes, and in fact I can think of one right now.
I recently ran into a problem where putting a grouped radio button (even if that group is one single button) as a sibling of a window with WS_EX_CONTROLPARENT style.
When the Radio button is clicked, the Microsoft window procedure attempts to find the sibling radio buttons by cycling through in a way similar to the tab order. Unfortunately, it traverses through controls that are children of the control parent window (their nephews?) and at the end of that list it does not start at the very beginning but instead loops back to the beginning of the list.
Because of this, the code enters an infinite loop looking for its siblings which it will never find. It never finds itself either!
(Un)fortunately, Wine does not exactly duplicate this behavior.
However, considering the behavior has never been fixed and exists in all Win32 implementations, it must be that way for some reason. Of course, unless anyone can come up with an example of an application that works worse under Wine because of it, it's not a bug.
Oh please. Yeah, let's all cower in fear of Microsoft. Let's stop what we're doing because Microsoft might not like it. Let's always worry about being sued.
It might be a very real possibility, but it's one you should never worry about, just be aware of. It's as bad as terrorism, it only works if the target becomes terrified.
This is all well and good, except that the tiles just got replaced with better ones a few years ago. In fact, most of the shuttle (except the airframe) was replaced. If anything, it's showing all the problems of a first generation overhaul, not of a tried and tested vehicle.
+3 Informative? My ass. How about -1 Go read up on it before posting with bold turned on to emphasize the red herrings you lay down.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of good people working for NASA and that they will try to figure out what went wrong. Contrary to the sensationalist crap that RodeoBoy spewed into Slashdot, each of those articles (to which he linked) pointed out that NASA is being very cautious and is making sure to judge all the evidence and doesn't want anyone (especially the ill-informed public) to start drawing premature conclusions. It would be a great disservice to the crew if we did not learn from this horrible tradgedy. NASA doesn't "want the public to believe" anything. In fact, they want the public to believe nothing. Instead, they'd like to look at the facts and leave unfounded beliefs out of it. Please be kind and give the investigation team a chance to at least bring some good out of this.
Disclaimer: The company I work for has contracts with NASA. I work down the road from Langely Research Center. I am not involved (even indirectly) with the investigation.
Actually, you've inadvertantly stumbled upon an excellent point.
No code is perfect to begin with. The BSD stack is still improved from time to time. The BSD stack that companies folded into their code years ago has since had some major changes and the companies haven't bothered to take many of those changes into account.
Had they been required by license (GPL) to keep the code open, then it could be fixed by other people. Instead, the implementation has languished. This in fact is one of Stallman's great resons for keeping all code free.
However, the reality of it is that our current environment still favors closed source software. With any luck, people will slowly start to wake up and realize that source code needs to be open for all software projects. Think about it. If it was normal to receive source with binaries, nobody would really think twice about it. It's only seen as a bad thing because it's not what Microsoft does. But the reality is that Microsoft has a business model that works well for them, a giant monopoly. The reason their competitors fall on their asses is because they are trying to play as if they were MS, which they are not. It's not impossible to compete with Microsoft, it's just impossible to compete head-on.
Well, still so much hostility I see.
You don't have to drag anything to unmount a drive. Aside from the traditional drag and drop method you can also bring up the context (what you call right-click) menu and select Eject. You can also click the object to select it and use the Eject choice from the file menu which is accessible (like the right-click menu), but more importantly visible, at all times. If those methods aren't enough, most modern Macs do have an eject button in one form or another as you noted.
Actually, I like the huge Dock. Of course, I also like the big NeXT Dock that it comes from, so apparently there is at least some element of personal preference here.
This is very subjective. I can say without lying that the Dual G4-1Ghz I use at work is no slouch at all. My G4-500 on the other hand is showing its age, but that hardly has anything to do with the operating system. I personally feel it is smoother than Windows or Linux on equivalent x86 hardware, but it's very hard to prove something like this one way or the other. And benchmarks are only sure to lead you further astray. To me, unless a system is slow to the point of being unusable, it's plenty fast.
You didn't even describe the Microsoft Windows cycling behavior properly. I remember learning of this feature years ago (back when I was a Windows 3.1 and OS/2 user and hated Macs). It's not behavior that can be easily described in an understandable way. The basics of it are that Alt-Tab will go forward through the cycle, and alt-shift-tab will go backward through the cycle (so long as you always continue to hold down alt). Whenever you release alt to complete it, the order of applications in the cylce is actually changed such that Alt-Tab will take you to the previous application. Useful? Yeah, you bet, once you get the hang of it it's great! But you can hardly say that simply cycling through an unchanging list is not easy or is useless. It works just fine and you always know which way you are going. Pressing Cmd-Tab will always cycle you towards the right (forward) in the dock, and Cmd-Shift-Tab will always cycle you to the left (backward).
Again, another item where there is an element of personal preference. I have found the Mac behavior to be quite intuitive, even though I was used to the Windows way. If you want to limit your view to the contents of one folder, then double click it. If you need a quicker way to navigate through many folders, try the NeXT-derived browse mode.
The right mouse button on my microsoft trackball works just fine. The scrollwheel also works quite well. Anything more than that requires third party software on Windows as well as Mac. I personally use it without third party software on my Mac for the same reason I use it without third party software on Windows, I simply don't require the extra functionality above and beyond what was already provided by the OS.
I don't know what to say to this. For me speed is a non-issue anyway, but the reality is the numbers can swing any way you want them to. And yes, you're right. Apple does use the numbers that make them look best.
Well actually no. I don't expect anyone to take offense over something as silly as OS choice. Why should I? I'm not offended by your statements against the Macintosh. Your tone of voice offends me, but not your statements. I believe I have shown that many of your statements are incorrect (except a few cases where there are elements of personal preference).
Err, sorry, that statement I made did quite reek of flamebait. :-(
In my opinion, OS X has a much more consistent and usable interface than Microsoft Windows. When using it I tend to find that I can figure it out quite quickly. I also have noticed that the non-geek people around me seem to have an easier time with my Mac (which is of course anecdotal evidence). Drawing from the information I had available and weighing the qualities as I saw fit, I came to the conclusion that OS X has a "far superior" GUI.
Sure, some elements are debatable, but so far you've only scratched the surface and pointed out the superficial differences. Many times you seemed to redefine usability in terms of "how much is it like what I've already used? (Microsoft)".
If you want a less biased source of usability information, then I suggest you do some searching and read some papers from usability experts. The "Interface hall of shame" is always a great read now and again, as well as the hall of fame and the rest of the website around the two "halls".
Normally the best products do not have the highest market share. Often they will in fact have a quite small market share. The only thing really holding Apple back from widespread adoption is their desire to play it safe and stay within their niche market (high-end personal computer hardware).
Woah there. I've been using Apple's for less than a year. I'm not saying Apple is all great. They're just like any other company.
And just like any other company, some technicians will be nice and help you with simple stuff like this, as the parent poster saw.
Anyway, I apologize for accusing you of being rude with the tech support guy. Obviously I have no clue, it was purely a speculative thing. Obviously I was wrong and the tech support guy just didn't have good customer skills.
A good technical support rep would have realized that despite the fact that you aren't using it with Apple equipment that it was in fact quite broken. Personally, I would have tried to explain why I was sure it was a hardware problem, and failing that I would have politely asked to speak with a more knowledgeable technician.
There's no excuse for getting treatment like that from any company. Of course, taking a couple minutes to take it to an Apple authorized reseller isn't too bad of an idea anyway either, unless your neighborhood Apple dealer sucks or is too far away.
Please don't throw the Apple zealot label around. Granted I'd rather be called an Apple zealot than a Windows user any day of the week. :-)
:-)
One thing I should mention about the driver issue is that at least on Apple I can boot to single user mode and move the "kext" out of the way without having to use an antiquated filesystem (FAT32) or some (hard to find) software that writes to NTFS.
On more than one NT system I have actually had to use Linux NTFS write support to purposely screw up driver files so that Windows wouldn't load them (since the write support is not good enough to actually rename a file). Last known good didn't work since it actually got to the login prompt and it crashed when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del.
Does it help Joe blow? Well, in a way. At least if Joe Apple hoses his system by installing some rouge kext I don't have to spend extra time finding software to fix it, it's already there. That was always one of my biggest gripes about Windows-- I was actually required to go out and purchase or find extra utilities (sometimes from Microsoft competitors-- i.e. Linux) in order to fix the Windows system. Now that is pretty damn stupid!
Ahh, I see.
That's understandable. I hate to see that kind of behavior from an Apple technician, but you get that everywhere.
I'm glad you got the problem fixed. I hope you reported your bad experience to Apple though. Like any company they of course have the idiots on the front line.
I called once because a brand new G4 (not mine) had what I believed to be a harddrive crash-- banging heads against side of drive upon startup.. you know.. CLANK... CLANK... CLANK.
I think I bounced through 3 levels of tech support, but all were polite, and the last level technician really knew his shit (though he seemed to be just learning OS X). Of course that was back with 10.1 where you still needed to boot 9 to get just about any maintenance done. It still helps, but for the most part now you can use 10.2 to get everything done.
Funny thing is, although my boss and I insisted the hard drive must have crashed, in fact it didn't. Apparently something screwed up the boot code for OS X (9 actualy booted fine after setting the startup disk by booting from a CD). I suspect it was an EPSON printer driver. Maybe their drivers are just as crappy on Macintosh as they are on Windows.
Anyway. So we actually wound up saving the data (using appletalk via OS 9) to my PowerMac and completely wiping the hard drive as per the technicians request. He did actually say it wasn't necessarily required, but that he'd prefer it if we just did it to make sure (as in, god knows what else the user did). As far as I know, we haven't had any more problems with it, and my guess is that there probably was some way to fix it short of a reinstall, but it was easy enough so I did it.
Since this article is clearly a dupe, I say we open up the floodgates to whatever we feel like posting!
Anyone who has anything to say about the article should just go post in the original story.
So, without further ado....
TACO!!!!! IT'S A DUPE!!!!
Hmm.. I'm gonna venture a guess here. If I compare the parent poster's writing style to yours, I think it should be fairly obvious why he got helped and you didn't.
Getting effective technical support requires some attention on the user's part. Calling up and bitching about how it doesn't work (which is what I suspect you did) and calling up and asking where to find the appropriate settings (which I suspect the parent poster did) are two very different things.
Besides, I've never had any trouble connecting to the wireless networks. An unencrypted internet-only wireless network handing out addresses via DHCP worked immediately. The name of the network scolled across the menubar as I went within range. Another network which was encrypted (WEP) was a bit trickier as I had to figure out which key to type in, but it still only took a minute or two.
The settings are right there, and are quite straightforward. If you simply didn't know they were there, then Apple tech support is great. If you call to bitch about how they suck because it worked just fine on your Linux and Windows systems then they probably don't give a fuck about you.
By the way, whatever happened? Was it actually a hardware problem? Did you eventually get the settings straight and you now just use this story as good FUD? Or are you really clueless and just trolling?
You know, a funny thing has occurred to me.
We both sound so much like those switcher ads you see everywhere. I don't know about you, but I'm sure I'm not getting any money from Apple.
From a geek perspective, what's not to like? Apple machines are real UNIX workstations, not some poorly assembled Pee-C crap. If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself. Compare the build quality of the PowerBook (just lift up the keyboard) to just about any other laptop. Compare the quality of the G4 towers to any PC. The only people making better hardware than Apple are the real big-time UNIX vendors like Sun, HP, and SGI. And they don't even attempt to come close on price whereas an Apple computer is still reasonably within the reach Joe consumer. Of course, Joe consumer has to be someone willing to fork over dough and receive a quality product in return. Some people aren't. For those people, e-machines exist and are supported by bugging the shit out of your friends to fix them.
I find it quite humorous the negative responses that I gather from a supposedly geek forum when I talk about Apple. My best friend (in real life) actually modded my original post DOWN because he was sick of hearing me talk about Apple. This same guy spent money tricking his PC out with fans and neon lights and all kinds of whiz-bang doesn't do shit but looks cool stuff. Apple? "Oh, that's too much money to spend on a computer."
Oh well, I guess if I still used a PC on a regular basis that I too would have a lot of anger. And I'd probably also direct that anger at someone who no longer sympathizes with it. In other words, I have no sympathy for a Windows user's computer problems.
Let me clarify that. At work I do help people because it's part of my job, and because I understand that they have no choice but to use Windows. So I come up with the best solutions I can, drawing on my over 18 years of experience with PCs. But for home users I can no longer justify spending my time digging up solutions to their problems or fixing all but the most basic of Windows issues. I'm not afraid to outright tell them that I feel a Mac may be a better choice when it comes time for a new computer. Hell, I think if I didn't say anything I'd be doing them an even greater disservice than if I am a little overzealous about Macs.
Well, I expected I could make a statement like that. Normally when I'm writing an opinion piece I expect to state my opinions in clear and concise language which is exactly what I did. If you don't agree with my opnion, then state why instead of accusing me of being an Apple troll.
Why am I supposed to change my writing style to be more passive agressive and avoid offending somebody? Isn't the burden normally on the reader to decide what is fact and what is opinion? Or has the world become a place now where everybody is lulled into thinking all that is said is supposed to be fact?
Well, despite what some people say about the menubar, I think it's an excellent idea. NeXT actually had a movable menu (not a bar), but that would probably be way too confusing for the typical Mac user to understand, not to mention PC users like yourself who would probably freak out at something like that. That and classic stuff still definitely needs a menubar, and it might have been hard to write carbon with a NeXT style menu instead of a menubar.
The trashcan problem you mentioned has never existed in OS X. I assume you just spouted off some random Apple FUD hoping to make it stick. All versions of OS X change the trashcan to an eject icon whenever you would be unmounting a file system. It changes as soon as you start dragging, so it's pretty damn obvious what you need to do. The same behavior is also used for other types of mounted filesystems including networked mounts.
Well, if I was gay, I probably would suck Steve Jobs's dick. Then I could say "HEY! I sucked Steve Jobs's dick!" That would be great! Do you really think he would be my frined if I did that?
Man, get a grip on yourself. I can't even believe all of the hostility towards Apple and Apple users. Well, yes I can, this is Slashdot so you get the people like yourself who can't stand the fact that someone might actually own something that works better.
Well, when I wrote this I thought that some of my points would be picked up as humor. I guess there's always one bad apple (hah, no pun intended) that spoils the bunch. Let's try this again, shall we?
First of all, no where did the guy say he specifically wanted a PC laptop. He wanted a laptop that ran Linux and didn't come with a Windows license. Thus, "Get a PowerBook" seemed like a pretty good answer to me.
All the stuff about "Look, you really want an Apple... you know you want to" was all sarcasm. I'm sorry that your persoality is so dull that you completely missed out.
I still maintain that a laptop that cannot possibly run Microsoft Windows is a definite plus. You might not agree, but I think it's a good thing. Of course, maybe I'm still just being facetious, take a guess.
No GUI design is ever going to fulfill the needs of 100% of all computer users. A lot of die-hard MacOS (< 10) users were quite surprised by OS X. Many of their complaints have since been addressed, a few still remain. I did read the article you linked to the other day, and the author does make some valid points. My impression was that he was ranting more about the Apple applications and not so much about the GUI in general. In fact, he had good things to say about the GUI in general and was mostly talking about how the Apple apps were broken because they did not follow the appropriate OS X guidelines. A lot of that I actually agree with. I'll touch on the font preview here too. Yes, I agree, it's stupid. I have no idea why a normal splitter wasn't used, it would have looked just fine.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "it's not Office". It is Office. Works just as well, usually better, than the PC version. And despite the still prevalent thought that it is not compatible with the PC version, it is. Even monster page layouts come out just fine. Unless you've used it recently, please stop spreading rumors about it. Of course Linux and FreeBSD can now run the Windows version as well (on x86 hardware). Believe me, I'm well aware of it, I followed Wine development for quite some time and even contributed some code-- some bugfixes and a minor reworking of the ASPI stuff which has since (2-3 years later) been majorly reworked. Anyway, I know the guy said he didn't need any Windows software (presumably including Office) but it never hurts to have the ability (and I jokingly gave it a half point on account of that and other factors).
Apparently you are unaware that Apple's X11 implementation actually provides the Apple OpenGL extensions and thus you can do some pretty cool rendering on it above and beyond that provided by other X implementations. Of course, I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to take the time to get your facts straight.
So apparently I am the troll for stating the facts (and adding a little bit of humor), but you are clean as a baby's bottom. In my message I didn't swear (WTF). I didn't use italics and bold type to emphasize words when my arguments didn't make any sense. I didn't call the poster a "linux shill" or a "Pee-C" user. I didn't link to articles that seemingly had something to do with my point, but in reality didn't.
In fact, I thought I made a pretty convincing argument for at least taking a look at the Apple stuff. In response I am flamed. Perhaps someone is maybe just a wee bit envious? A case of buyers remorse perhaps? I come up with valid reasons for using Apple hardware, and you get all pissy and tell me how Apple sux0rs and PCs rock.
In short: Piss off you fucking troll.
It's been said, but not like this.
Look, what you really want is a PowerBook. You know it, everyone here knows it. You just won't admit it.
So let's compare features. The Apple certainly has no potential whatsoever of running Microsoft Windows except through some complete emulation/virtualization software. Score one for Apple. The Apple comes with an actual GUI far superior to Microsoft Windows (not even a contest) and much more polished than your typical UNIX GUI. Score another (or a couple) for Apple.
Want more? Well, your Mac is actually capable of running Microsoft Office should you later find yourself in a bind and be REQUIRED to deal with it to put food on the table. On the plus side, you can always pirate it and you don't need Windows or Windows emulation software to run it. That's worth about a half a point (MS Office isn't that great in my book). Your Mac will also be able to run just about any open source program you want. Furthermore, Apple has now even decided to provide an official version of X11 which they have even extended to allow full access to the OpenGL extensions. That means that you can create "lickable" GUIs using the X Window System.
But even if you don't want to run Mac OS X (and trust me, you will), you can always run Linux on it. There are several very good quality PowerPC distros available. Furthermore, even if you go this route, it still doesn't preclude you from running MacOS X (or 7 8 or 9 for that matter) using the mac on linux software.
And on top of all of that you'll be supporting a company who actually understands that it is customers that drive the bottom line; a company that creates GUIs that even your mom can understand, GUIs that actually make sense and help you get on with what you are trying to do-- especially if you are a hard-core geek.
So please at least consider the Powerbook. It's a sleek machine, it's extremely solidly built (well, the 12" model I hear leaves something to be desired, but the rest are excellent). It comes with a good OS. You can run Linux on it. And you're not supporting a company that supports Microsoft. In fact, you are supporting a company that actually competes with Microsoft (on some small level). A company whose CEO made a little deal with Microsoft and got a lot of gain for very little (putting MS IE in as the default browser, BFD).
In short: you know you want it dude!
You show a great amount of technical understanding of how BIOS routines are normally called and of how linking is normally done. You have merely stated the quite obvious facts that I already know (though it's good to put them out there for the typical slashdotter).
Where you fall short is your assumption that a BIOS or HAL must be written exactly as you specify.
What stops me from writing a HAL that responds to software interrupts? What stops me from writing a BIOS that instead of using software interrupts has a jump table in a well defined memory location just like dynamic linking?
So far it's hard to say if Castle did anything wrong. They are complying with the GPL with respect to the HAL because they will release code to all customers who ask for it. Well, at least after being slashdotted they will.
I think Castle understands the GPL quite well. Remember, the GPL allows one to run GPL software on top of proprietary systems, and as evidenced by Linux it also permits running proprietary software on top of GPL systems (though without linking to GPL libraries, thus why glibc is LPGL). I think the real question here is that of separation. Is the HAL reasonably separate that it can in fact be considered like a computers BIOS? What about the other stuff? It's my understanding that RiscOS came from another platform. So essentially they are running software they had already written on top of a GPL HAL. Considering that on the original machine the HAL would actually have been the BIOS I can see a case for this.
Do I like it.. no.. it weakens the GPL. But I fear they may be in the right here.
I don't understand how you can make a cut and dried statement such as "if they link it's a violation, plain and simple." Could you please define linking? How is it different from calling routines in a BIOS?
I'll give you a hint. There is little to no technical difference. Either way you're going to be pushing some arguments on the stack or placing them in registers and calling a routine and possibly receiving a return value from that routine. There really is no technical difference between these activities.
So what makes running DOS on top of LinuxBIOS okay, but running RiscOS on top of a Linux-based HAL not okay? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an answer to this question. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it will be a non-technical one.
You hit the nail on the head: you normally want to keep your users happy. But in this case (and many cases) what purpose does it serve to make public private information?
Anytime I hear cries for doing so they seem to come from high schoolers, college students, or other people who just gobble up CNN and MSNBC.
Think: NORMAL people do not air their dirty laundry. Occasionally journalists will do this for you, but often times I think the journalists should have a lot more respect. Isn't it obvious that they're going to portray airing dirty laundry as a noble effort? I think a good percentage of the population has been brain-washed into thinking it is a noble effort when it's really just a way for them to make a buck off of you.
That also reminds me.. NBC pissed me off today. They covered the ceremonies at the Johnson Space Center and while they were still showing this nice somber scene Tom Brokaw breaks into this thing about Sadam! However, in his defense you could tell in his voice he would have preferred to give the moment more rest and remain silent. I found it extremely disrespectful, but I'm sure all the other networks did it too. After all, you have a right to know! (what they want to tell you)
This is lame.
I've never used one of these because normally the only thing preventing you from logging in with SSH or telnet is that your shell is not a normal one.
But guess what.. there's this neat command called "chsh" on most of these systems. Normally it is setuid root so you can change your own shell. So you just run it on a TTY (since it requires a real TTY for you to type your password) and you can change your shell to /bin/bash.
Instead of posting specific instructions, I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to discover how to create a TTY. Some hints follow.
You can run any program you can upload (including regular old shell script) as a CGI. Gee.. now what protocols can we think of kids that might allocate a TTY and allow one to use it over the network... hmmmm... But you know to run the server for this you will need an internet super server, because the server for this protocol is usually designed to work with this internet super server.
And let's see, this particular protocol's server normally runs the "login" program with a specific set of arguments upon a successful connection. Unfortunately that is no good as login must be run as root. But hmm, if you make a little program that just throws away it's arguments and runs a shell, you'd be in business. So now you can use a certain client program to connect to some port on your server which will immediately give you a shell under your acconut (yes, there is a brief window of opportunity here for someone impersonating as you). That shell is being run on a TTY, so you can actually use chsh. Assuming chsh is a setuid program as usual then you are in business-- most hosters do have SSH turned on by default.
Fair warning: Although you are not in any way breaching the security of the box, you are giving yourself easier access to things you already really had access to anyway (looking at it from the OS security model). One of my friends tried this and got dropped by his hoster. Were they right to drop him? I don't think so. Is it worth it to fight it? Not unless you want to make an example out of them and don't mind spending more than you'll ever get.
Free Software is not necessarily developed publicly. Every project is going to involve at the very least a few e-mails back and forth in private between people. And maybe that evolves into a more formal core team.
So what? Not everything is meant to be aired in public. You act as though you have some "right to know." Who or what twisted your mind into thinking that it is your "right" to stick your nose in everybody's business?
I think you need to go turn off the television and stop reading Slashdot for a while.
NOTE: Of course I was hoping someone kindly leaked the details in the comments, but I'm just curious. I don't expect to be given the details just because I have a pulse.
Well, despite being marked as flamebait I'm going to bite and take your message as sarcasm instead.
The simple fact is that in some cases natural monopolies will occur. Electric service is the classic example of this. My dad worked for a local power company for years. Trust me, the idea is NOT for them to be a non-profit. They are allowed to make a modest profit-- and they DO! It's not Microsoft or Enron style profit, but it's a good clean simple profit that keeps the shareholders happy.
A utility is in the business of providing a service for a reasonable price. If they don't have a reaosonable price, people start voting politicians out. Politicians don't like that, so they make sure the rates are reasonable. And you know what.. it has worked JUST FINE for around a hundred years! At least, until the politicians started deciding to deregulate-- which combined with some other bad decisions allowed Enron to happen.
Think about our phone systems. Great, we now have all these baby bells that have remerged into 2 or 3 big ass companies. None of them are in the business of providing services for a modest profit, they are in the business of gouging their consumers (note: not customers) for as much money as they can! It was mentioned on Slashdot not even a month ago that with the advent of digital telphone switching and IP telephony it has become a LOT cheaper to operate a telecommunications company.
So why are we still paying high prices? Yes, they are lower than years past, but given the decrease in maintenance costs they should be about 10 times lower than they are now. Well, we're still being gouged because we are willing to pay it. We pay what the MARKET WILL BEAR. Telephone service is another natural monopoly. It's easier to just have one company handle it and to simply keep a leash around their neck. This is what AT&T was-- a GOVERNMENT GRANTED monopoly whose rates WERE determined by the government. The government COULD have chosen to simply regulate the shit out of AT&T. What exactly was so bad about them? They spent that money keeping people like Dennis Ritchie, Keith Thompson, and Brian Kerningham working! Working on things that (go figure) actually paved the way for IP telephony and other modern telephone systems as well as helped the entire computing community. Specifically BECAUSE AT&T didn't want to sell it because they had the telephone monopoly, they gave it away.
Shit, they were already on track to turning the telephone system into an entirely digital one. Why? Simple, because their rates were regulated and thus if they could provide the same service for less money then they'd make KILLER profits-- at least until the regulators caught up with them.
So someone please remind me why we're supposed to deregulate everything and allow the next Enron to happen? Why can't we simply learn from history. And just so you all know.. I consider myself to be a conservative. Not the religious zombie head-up-ass conservative that is so prevalent in politics these days. But hmm.. if we think about it.. isn't it actually the democrats that wanted the deregulation? AFAIK, Clinton was praised for his great energy policy which eventually led to Enron. And Reagan didn't make many friends keeping IBM together.. but look where we are today! IBM evolved into a company that makes a killing AND helps the computing community! Isn't that what business is SUPPOSED to be about?
-Dave
I can't believe you are even trying to defend this. A number of identical or near-identical letters will do absolutely nothing to influence someone aware of the duplicates. In fact, my guess is that it will aggravate him, perhaps even to the point of having a negative impact. It might work for someone who is not aware that this is possible, but I wouldn't count on it.
And if some idiot is actually stupid enough to knowingly pay attention to this crap, then they will get what will be coming to them.
I have never and will never send someone else's words with my name on them. Doing this is completely unethical and I can't believe it when groups actually suggest this. It is not enough that the other side is doing it. This is stooping way too low for my tastes.
If you don't feel strongly enough about a topic to write a quick note about it, then your opinion does not count and does not matter. Encouraging people to send out a prewritten letter in support of your propaganda is just plain wrong. I am glad the editors have gotten together to weed this stuff out.
Let's face facts, no software is ever perfect (especially in the eye of the creator if he is a good programmer). Binary software that hooks the kernel has a great potential for crashing.
The simple fact of the matter is that in this case, it has a lot to do with the fact that the component is not open source
However, with that said it's not impossible for programs to crash here and there (though the only kernel crashes I've EVER experienced were related to nVidia or Netraverse). Fortunately, if you think your distro is doing a bad job of packaging the software and/or is giving you a bunch of buggy shit... You can go use a different distro! Unlike some other platforms.
You say how Raskin is simply stating the obvious, yet still miss at least half of his point.
He's not /just/ saying you should have standard cut, copy, paste in all apps, what he is saying is that you should ONLY have cut, copy, and paste in apps unless you have a really good reason not to. In other words, resist the temptation to add hundreds of features for operations which can be done with a few basic building blocks.
At least that's what I got out of it.
Oh, and I'll tell you that at least on the Mac, keyboard shortcuts seem to make sense. Cmd-X,C,V (cut copy paste) A (select all) Z (undo) Q (Quit application W (close window). Q and W are very helpful. Putting cut copy and paste as shortcut keys is a good idea. They are all lined up on the keyboard, command is easy enough to thumb while hitting one of them (unlike that abomination that is the PC control key.. ack).
Thank you! Finally someone around here who just wants to know what the deal is instead of spouting off ill-informed opinions.
You are partially correct and partially wrong, just like the parent to my post (the great-grandparent of this post). Yes, the GPL requires that one release the source under GPL to anyone who receives a binary (in practice that means everyone, including competitors). But you have to understand that the GPL specifically stops at the linking level. That is, if I combine my code with GPL code then my code falls under the GPL. Now the LGPL is a bit different. The LGPL actually will allow me to link non-LGPL code with the LGPL library/libraries so long as the end user can replace the LGPL portion with a newer version such that he can fix bugs in it. In practice this usually turns into dynamic linking, although technically one could provide an archive file of everything except the LGPL library and allow users to link that with a newer version of the library to produce their own executable with the newer version included.
So, let's say I start a company called Orange computers and I take GNU and other free software, make it into an easy to use desktop system and sell it. The big question is: Do I have to release my code? The answer is actually REALLY simple. /IF/ my code links with GPL code, yes. If I link with LGPL cdoe I must allow the LGPL portion to be replaced. If I don't link with any (L)GPL code, I can do whatever the hell I please. So let's say I improve some GNU utilities like "ls" and "find". I'd have to then release my modifications under the GPL. And if I improve glibc (the GNU LGPL C library) then I must release those modifications. But if I write software /using/ glibc or gtk or gnome libraries or any other LGPL libraries then I do NOT need to release my code. So in short I merely need to release code that I have built other code upon. I do not have to release the code for the entire system just because I included some (L)GPL software along with it. In fact, Apple (and friends)'s claims that they use BSD because they are afraid of GNU is a complete and total lie. Hmm.. does anybody remember which compiler the BSDs use? Oh yeah.. GCC which is GPL software (and the earlier versions were in fact written mostly by RMS). Indeed, the original NeXT system used GCC as well.
Did Apple release their changes to gcc? You bet! Did the fact that they built everything using gcc and included gcc along with proprietary software on the developers CD require them to release all their code as GPL? NO IT DID NOT.
So in short, I am extremely sick of the BSD bigots claiming the GPL is viral and evil and that we should all switch to BSD. I don't doubt at least some of these (supposed) BSD supporters are Microsofties trying to give the GNU project a bad name. The sad reality is that GNU is the only chance that programmers and users have left. Look at the alternatives. A bunch of people spreading lies about how the GPL requires all software to be free of cost and how the only way to make money on software is to bet the farm on Microsoft. Look at how many software developers now have to retool from VB to C# because Microsoft on a whim has decided they should move from one really really shitty quiche-eater language to a halfway decent quiche-eater language. At least with GNU you aren't fucked when MS decides they don't like you or that MS needs to change its strategy.
It's like Dennis Leary says. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife? Fuck that, you covet his wife, his car, his house, because you know what pal, he's coveting every INCH of your shit. The GPL provides a way to ENFORCE sharing of code where a company would normally consider it a potential loss of property. I just hope people wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!