Of course, since Australia isn't in the stone ages CDMA is now being replaced with a HSDPA 3G network. America, having a universally shitty mobile phone setup will have CDMA forever.
Presumably you meant "will have CDMA (well, IS-95) forever", for consistency's sake. HSDPA is an extension to UMTS, whose radio layer is, err, umm, a form of CDMA. (Yes, I agree, the way technical terms are misused for marketing reasons is annoying.)
So what's being replaced in Australia is IS-95, not CDMA; the replacement network uses Code Division Multiple Access, albeit with GSM-flavored higher-level protocols. And, yes, for better or worse, even as 3G networks get rolled out in the US, some will use CDMA2000 higher-level protocols, and some will use UMTS.
(For the record, when it comes time to get some real work done, I go running for the nearest Unix terminal, be it Solaris, HP-UX, Linux... doesn't matter, that's the OS and environment I find put together in the smartest way.)
Same here. Of course, the terminal I usually go running for is called Terminal.:-) (I.e., most of my Unix work these days is on OS X.)
I haven't seen a Linux that runs identically on PPC and Intel so much so that you can't tell them apart, the way Mac OS X does
Have you tried? I.e., have you, for example, installed a given release of Debian on both an x86 PC and a PPC Mac, both configured with the same desktop environment? If you've tried different distributions, and not found them identical, perhaps you're comparing apples^Wbananas and oranges.
It makes it easy to Open a Zip/Rar file as a folder, and it makes it easy to treat an FTP server as a folder. but what about a Zip File on an FTP server?
Mount the FTP server as a file system. Once you've done that, you now have, in your file system name space, a Zip file. Mount that Zip file. References to it, or the files in it, will be passed to the user-space zipfs, which will do I/O to the Zip file. That I/O will be passed to the user-space ftpfs, which will do FTP operations to get the file's contents.
...though this seems to be a limitation based on some private APIs needing to be made public, which I hope Apple resolves.
To be precise, it's a limitation on a private plugin interface needing to be made public. Making an interface public means committing to the interface, making it harder to make changes if a design decision made at time T turns out not to have been the right thing to do at time T plus delta T. (That particular interface might well change very significantly in future releases. It might be "done" at some point in the future, at which point Apple might decide to make it public.)
KDE's implementation of SSH-as-filesystem (called fish://) is darned slick, and I've always thought that Apple was missing out by not having something like it.
FUSE isn't like it - in at least some ways, it's better. FUSE makes it work at the UN*X API level, which means that even non-KDE applications, such as grep, can use it.
(normal people) don't give a dead rat's ass about CSS, DOM, XHTML, microformats, "mashups" or any of that other stuff that the self-appointed standards nannies of teh interwebs have decided everyone should observe closely or face death
Normal people shouldn't have to care about them; normal people setting up Web pages should have software (whether it's on their machine or on their server) that lets them use something simpler than Full Frontal HTML to set up the page.
But that's not what the article was complaining about, as far as I can tell; it was complaining about the ugliness of the design of a lot of MySpace pages. I suspect you can create butt-ugly pages that conform to all W3C "implementation" standards. And, yes, that's probably the price they pay for being MySpace.
Kdawson, you can add a question mark to the title and make numerous other corrections to the body of the write-up, if you do not wish Slashdot to be sued for publishing false statements about a company's product. I do not think Apple will be laughing about your defamation here.
im pissed and now im not gonna get one.. APPLE JUST LOST 50 million sales
50 million sales? At about USD 500 for the cheaper model, that's about USD 25000 million. You must be the richest Slashdotter of them all if you were going to buy 50 million iPhones!
AFAIK, there is no GNU software in the mainline distribution of OS X. The only significant piece of GNU software that I'm aware of is the optional GCC compiler.
Try turning on "Windows Sharing" in the Sharing pane of System Configuration and then ask yourself what piece of software named after a Brazilian style of music and dance is acting as the SMB server on your Mac.:-) But, no, you're probably not going to see Samba running on your iPhone, either.
OS X appears to be quite demonstrably portable... not much short of NetBSD appears to be more portable.
Yeah, it's not as if Linux distributions can be made to work on x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64, 68k, SPARC, S/390, S/390-64 (a/k/a z/Architecture), SuperH, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, etc..:-)
well.. to be really obscure, technically the sparc / hpux
software was just the nextstep/openstep interface running on the existing
solaris (SunOS?) or hpux kernel/os..
The fact that those existed doesn't mean that there wasn't also a native port of the NeXT OS to Sun and HP hardware. As far as I know, those ports did exist.
and the underlying mach kernel on which the bsd superserver runs is
pretty portable too..
(I'm not exactly sure I'd use a word derived from "server" in that context; system calls go directly to the BSD code, and the file system and networking kernel code runs in process context the same way it does on most other UN*Xes.)
Where the hell does it say anybody (including Apple) has to release source code before "External Deployment"?
Not to mention the fact that Apple licenses the use of OS X from Apple under the special "we can do anything we damn well want to the part that's our code" license.:-)
How Can We Convert the US to the Metric System? is like asking "How can we convert France to speaking English?"
No, it's not. It's not as if the current measurement system we're using somehow belongs to us; we inherited most of it from the Mother Country. For that matter, other children of the Mother Country have managed to convert; heck, our neighbor to the north did, and they never had that little "revolution" thing that we did, so they arguably had stronger ties to Britain.
Seeing Imperial units die out in the U.S. would be as sad as watching Welsh die out in Wales.
In some people's eyes, perhaps, but not in others.
(Knowing the sorts of people here, I imagine many of you wouldn't give a damn about either.)
I'd consider the death of Welsh sad. I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the death of the imperial system. As far as I'm concerned, it's ridiculous to insinuate that there's something wrong with the "sorts of people" who would agree with me on both.
Actually, they said capital-S "Stone", so I presume they meant "Rolling Stone", but they didn't specify which one - is Mick, Keef, Ron, or Charlie the standard unit of weight?
That looks like server stuff to me; the posting to which I was replying said "The thing is, unless Apple can seamlessly integrate their desktop OS into Active Directory like how 2000/XP (and soon Vista) already do...", but the page you point to discusses Mac OS X Server capabilities (LDAP server, Kerberos KDC, SMB server and domain controller).
The SMB client in OS X is a descendant of Boris Popov's FreeBSD SMB VFS (with a lot of Apple work done on it), and the code to talk to Active Directory on the client side is largely written at Apple.
On the other hand, the syntax of COBOL can make it harder to read even when programmed right. If you compare the following two lines of code, do you really thing the first is easier to read and understand than the second?
SUBTRACT TOTAL-EXPENSES FROM GROSS-SALES GIVING NET-PROFIT.
The thing is, unless Apple can seamlessly integrate their desktop OS into Active Directory like how 2000/XP (and soon Vista) already do, they're not going to be considered as a major player in corporate IT land. They need to be able to plug into currently existing infrastructure, be centrally managed, and offer an improved Net Present Value over PC's.
I just don't see that happening for a number of reasons, asides from having to wait for Samba-4.
How is Samba involved with this? (Only a tiny amount of OS X's client-side code to handle Microsoft protocols comes from Samba.)
In fact, aren't almost all x86 processors spectacularly bad at power consumption, with the exception of Intel's Core 2 sub-architecture?
"In fact, aren't almost all x86 processors spectacularly bad at power consumption, with the exception of the primary line of processors that the main x86 processor vendor is currently selling?":-) (The only reason I don't say "main two x86 processor vendors" is that I don't know whether AMD's processors are "spectacularly bad at power consumption", although I have the impression that they're fairly good about power efficiency.)
With Just-in-Time compilation, legacy x86 programs could be painlessly run on ARM/PPC by translating them dynamically at run time, similar to how CIL and Java work.
Yeah, and run 20x slower.
Given Transitive's technology, "20x" might be an exaggeration, unless either the ARM/PPC/whatever processor isn't fast enough or translating from x86 to ARM/PPC/whatever is significantly harder than translating from PPC to x86 - Rosetta isn't, as far as I know, 20x slower than native.
Unfortunately the insurance companies, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies here make too much money on diabetes.
I.e., insurance companies get paid more to cover diabetics than the extra cost of medicine, etc. for them, so that they're better off the more diabetics there are? (Even with the group health plans that many here in the US have through their employers?)
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably you meant "will have CDMA (well, IS-95) forever", for consistency's sake. HSDPA is an extension to UMTS, whose radio layer is, err, umm, a form of CDMA. (Yes, I agree, the way technical terms are misused for marketing reasons is annoying.)
So what's being replaced in Australia is IS-95, not CDMA; the replacement network uses Code Division Multiple Access, albeit with GSM-flavored higher-level protocols. And, yes, for better or worse, even as 3G networks get rolled out in the US, some will use CDMA2000 higher-level protocols, and some will use UMTS.
Yes. (Just search for the "L" word.)
Same here. Of course, the terminal I usually go running for is called Terminal. :-) (I.e., most of my Unix work these days is on OS X.)
Have you tried? I.e., have you, for example, installed a given release of Debian on both an x86 PC and a PPC Mac, both configured with the same desktop environment? If you've tried different distributions, and not found them identical, perhaps you're comparing apples^Wbananas and oranges.
Mount the FTP server as a file system. Once you've done that, you now have, in your file system name space, a Zip file. Mount that Zip file. References to it, or the files in it, will be passed to the user-space zipfs, which will do I/O to the Zip file. That I/O will be passed to the user-space ftpfs, which will do FTP operations to get the file's contents.
To be precise, it's a limitation on a private plugin interface needing to be made public. Making an interface public means committing to the interface, making it harder to make changes if a design decision made at time T turns out not to have been the right thing to do at time T plus delta T. (That particular interface might well change very significantly in future releases. It might be "done" at some point in the future, at which point Apple might decide to make it public.)
FUSE isn't like it - in at least some ways, it's better. FUSE makes it work at the UN*X API level, which means that even non-KDE applications, such as grep, can use it.
Normal people shouldn't have to care about them; normal people setting up Web pages should have software (whether it's on their machine or on their server) that lets them use something simpler than Full Frontal HTML to set up the page.
But that's not what the article was complaining about, as far as I can tell; it was complaining about the ugliness of the design of a lot of MySpace pages. I suspect you can create butt-ugly pages that conform to all W3C "implementation" standards. And, yes, that's probably the price they pay for being MySpace.
If they didn't sue over "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame., what makes you think they'll sue over this?
It's Apple. What did you expect?
50 million sales? At about USD 500 for the cheaper model, that's about USD 25000 million. You must be the richest Slashdotter of them all if you were going to buy 50 million iPhones!
Try turning on "Windows Sharing" in the Sharing pane of System Configuration and then ask yourself what piece of software named after a Brazilian style of music and dance is acting as the SMB server on your Mac. :-) But, no, you're probably not going to see Samba running on your iPhone, either.
Yeah, it's not as if Linux distributions can be made to work on x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64, 68k, SPARC, S/390, S/390-64 (a/k/a z/Architecture), SuperH, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, etc.. :-)
The fact that those existed doesn't mean that there wasn't also a native port of the NeXT OS to Sun and HP hardware. As far as I know, those ports did exist.
(I'm not exactly sure I'd use a word derived from "server" in that context; system calls go directly to the BSD code, and the file system and networking kernel code runs in process context the same way it does on most other UN*Xes.)
Not to mention the fact that Apple licenses the use of OS X from Apple under the special "we can do anything we damn well want to the part that's our code" license. :-)
No, it's not. It's not as if the current measurement system we're using somehow belongs to us; we inherited most of it from the Mother Country. For that matter, other children of the Mother Country have managed to convert; heck, our neighbor to the north did, and they never had that little "revolution" thing that we did, so they arguably had stronger ties to Britain.
In some people's eyes, perhaps, but not in others.
I'd consider the death of Welsh sad. I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the death of the imperial system. As far as I'm concerned, it's ridiculous to insinuate that there's something wrong with the "sorts of people" who would agree with me on both.
Actually, they said capital-S "Stone", so I presume they meant "Rolling Stone", but they didn't specify which one - is Mick, Keef, Ron, or Charlie the standard unit of weight?
As opposed to the US, where wine is usually sold in 750ml bottles. :-)
That looks like server stuff to me; the posting to which I was replying said "The thing is, unless Apple can seamlessly integrate their desktop OS into Active Directory like how 2000/XP (and soon Vista) already do ...", but the page you point to discusses Mac OS X Server capabilities (LDAP server, Kerberos KDC, SMB server and domain controller).
The SMB client in OS X is a descendant of Boris Popov's FreeBSD SMB VFS (with a lot of Apple work done on it), and the code to talk to Active Directory on the client side is largely written at Apple.
I like
COMPUTE NET-PROFIT = GROSS-SALES - TOTAL-EXPENSES;
myself, if for no other reason than that it probably pisses off the people who actually like verbose COBOL syntax.
How is Samba involved with this? (Only a tiny amount of OS X's client-side code to handle Microsoft protocols comes from Samba.)
"In fact, aren't almost all x86 processors spectacularly bad at power consumption, with the exception of the primary line of processors that the main x86 processor vendor is currently selling?" :-) (The only reason I don't say "main two x86 processor vendors" is that I don't know whether AMD's processors are "spectacularly bad at power consumption", although I have the impression that they're fairly good about power efficiency.)
Given Transitive's technology, "20x" might be an exaggeration, unless either the ARM/PPC/whatever processor isn't fast enough or translating from x86 to ARM/PPC/whatever is significantly harder than translating from PPC to x86 - Rosetta isn't, as far as I know, 20x slower than native.
You must be a real Boso, then.
Well, most of the time, anyway. "So much for the seashells. See you in a few minutes.".
I.e., insurance companies get paid more to cover diabetics than the extra cost of medicine, etc. for them, so that they're better off the more diabetics there are? (Even with the group health plans that many here in the US have through their employers?)