I can't say I've ever come away from WWDC with specific information about future hardware products
Or, at least, about specific future hardware products. People presumably came away from WWDC 2005 with the specific information that most if not all future hardware products would have x86 processors in them.
But, yes, Apple doesn't do roadmaps, so you won't hear things such as "we'll be coming out with a quad-Kentsfield Mac mini in six months" at WWDC.
We're likely to see a lot more concentration on mass marketting. XServe means nothing to most of their audience.
Bear in mind what the "D" in "WWDC" stands for - this is a somewhat more narrowly-targeted conference, so it would probably be used for a number of announcements that would mean nothing to much of the Apple customer base (an announcement of a new Core Fillintheblank facility coming in Leopard would probably go over the head of most Mac owners, for example).
They are traditionally a high-cost, high-margin vendor who adds value to their products by marketing. There is no room for that in the cell phone market
Somebody should tell Nokia that. Of course, those are completely ridiculous phones, probably aimed at the sort of folks who'd buy a Maybach, so that's a bit above what Apple'd probably be interested in.
I prefer the type of phone that you crank in order to get the operators attention, and then say "Maybel, connect me to my mother."
Well, people have already done a rotary-dial mobile phone, and some mobile phones support voice recognition, it might be amusing to have a mobile phone in an old-fashioned housing, with a crank input and voice recognition, so you'd turn the crank to activate the voice recognition and then tell it whom to call.
RTFWiki. The Fedora Women page on the Fedora Wiki says:
A large portion of the Fedora userbase is made up of women. They are often under-represented within the community, with many people not even realizing how big a share of the community they are. The Fedora Women program aims to improve that representation and to provide a forum for the women of the Fedora Community.
Note the "is made up of women". That's not talking about getting women to use Fedora. It's talking about women already using Fedora.
It also says:
Lady contributors to the Fedora Project can add their wiki homepages to the CategoryWomen category. The CategoryWomen page can be used to locate them, along with other Fedora Women pages.
Note the "contributors". It's not talking about pushing women into contributing. It's talking about women who are already contributing.
It also says:
Women who are interested in working with the Fedora Project can work with Fedora Women to get started. They can also work through the Fedora Mentors project to get assistance for every step. For more information about working with the Fedora Project, see these resources:
Note the "who are interested in working with the Fedora Project". It's not talking about pushing women into getting interested in Fedora. It's talking about women who are already interested in contributing.
So this is not the project to get the girls away from their cooking and sewing, haranguing them into instead developing driver patches even though they'd rather be knitting baby booties, that all too many of the responses seem to be treating it as.
A pink desktop background and the cigarette lighter has been replaced by a lipstick holder.
The pink desktop background, of course, replacing the wallpaper with a warrior woman wearing chain-mail armor carefully designed to protect her crotch and the nipples on her 44DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD breasts.
A large portion of the Fedora userbase is made up of women. They are often under-represented within the community, with many people not even realizing how big a share of the community they are. The Fedora Women program aims to improve that representation and to provide a forum for the women of the Fedora Community.
I don't see any "HEY GIRLS CHECK THIS FEDORA CORE THING OUT!" message there - they speak of women already using Fedora.
It also says:
Women who are interested in working with the Fedora Project can work with Fedora Women to get started.
Could somebody please mark the parent post "+6 Clueful"? That's the first analogy I've seen that managed to draw a distinction between the "borrowing the connection for a quick check of e-mail" scenario that people have been citing when raining thunderous condemnation down on those Nasty Evil Blue Meanies turning people's pr0n upside down and the "acting as if they had some Inherent Moral Right to use your connection" scenario that I suspect the creator of the original hack was thinking of (and perhaps dealing with, but he might've just come up with it as a "proof of concept" hack) when he came up with it.
I can't respect you if you think this give you the right of playing childish pranks on them. If you don't want others to use the net then simply be polite and close/encrypt it.
If a person doesn't want what some people insist on condemning as "childish pranks" played on them, that person should simply be polite, do as you do. and ask before connecting to somebody's network.
They also say if a a signal enters your reciever you can read it. Together they imply you can join an unsecured network, because that person is allowing their equipment to broadcast, and recieve on open frequencies.
They also imply that anybody else who wants to listen to what you're sending on that network can do so - and they don't imply that the person who manages that network is obliged to turn your radio transmission into an IP datagram and forward it onto their network without molestation. (Heh. I'd like to see the Web accesses of the types vigorously defending joining "wide open" networks redirected to a site showing them the real meaning of "wide open", if you know what I mean and I think you do....)
BUT, if I move into a new apartment and don't have internet connectivity yet, is it unethical for me to pop on to a neighbor's open network for a minute to check my e-mail?
As far as I'm concerned, unless you've asked the neighbors whether you may do so and they've said "yes", I'd say the answer is "yes, it's unethical". At minimum, I'd consider it impolite.
My neighbours are stealing my wireless internet access. I could encrypt it or alternately I could have fun.
I.e., the network is "open" in the 802.11 sense, but isn't "open" in the sense that he wants people to be able to happily surf normally using his connection, or in the sense that you can expect your traffic through the network to be unmolested at any protocol level. Think of it, if you will, as a form of encryption. Yes, you can choose to view the act of not securing a network at the 802.11 level as an invitation to use the network as you please without any obligation on your part either to compensate the person providing the network or to provide a network others can use. You can also choose to view the act of not locking a bicycle as an invitation to use it as you please without any obligation to return it when you're done, compensate the person providing the bicycle, or provide a bicycle that others can use, but, if you do, in neither case would I take your moral views on that subject very seriously, and I suspect most other people - including, perhaps, even fans of free networks or bicycle-sharing programs - would do so, as moral views of that sort leave some people free of moral constraints on the issue in question.)
Electroschock's speaking of "P2P" in this context was also a bit off; he said "The net should be a net and wireless technology is great for the creation of a real P2P internet." "P" in "P2P" stands for "peer"; unless your neighbors are letting you use their wireless network, what's going on isn't peer-to-peer, it's somebody deciding that they're entitled to your bandwidth but they don't have to provide any bandwidth of their own.
In an ISP-less world of free networks, I think it'd be inappropriate to muck with the network access of people whose packets happen to be traversing your network if it's part of a free (inter)network. That's not a world people use ISPs to route their packets to the rest of the Intarweb, and in which some people use other people's ISP connections to route their packets to the rest of the Intarweb, however, and that's the world the prankster is speaking of.
They really don't like you bringing porn into their countries. Of course, there are ample supplies of domestic porn already there, so I'm not sure why you'd want to import it.
Sure sounds like protectionism to me. Don't want any of that damn cheap imported porn ruining the domestic industry....
As the other reply said, Apple does not take anything from the BSD kernel
Wrong. Try looking at the bsd subdirectory of the xnu source tree; it's not "just BSD" - it implements processes/threads atop Mach tasks/threads, and has IOKit for drivers - but it's recognizably based on BSD kernel code."
The Mac OS X kernel is based on the Mach "microkernel", which itself used to rely on BSD code to fill in the gaps to make a fully functional Unix-like operating system.
More like PL/S. It was not one of the original OS/360 languages, however; see, for example, slide 20 of this presentation for an OS class, which says "In mid-1970s, IBM migrated to PL/S, a medium-level language".
And yet... I have an ADC membership, and I've written all this Cocoa Objective-C USB code that's definitely interfacing with C++ constructs in the IOKit.
If it's Cocoa, it's userland. There's both userland and kernel IOKit code.
And there's the little complaint that - I've also had to write device drivers for OS X, and they are also written in C++.
The kernel IOKit code is in C++ (and I never said it wasn't; I said that it's not the case that all OS X kernel code was in C++).
I may, of course, have been mistaken in thinking that simply because the IO subsystem is written in C++ that that meant that portions of the kernel were also written in C++
The kernel-mode IOKit code is C++. However, not all of the kernel code is in C++; assuming that because IOKit is in C++ the entire kernel in C++ is, indeed, a mistake.
Apple has yet to release an actual "Desktop" x86 machine... So far, the x86 line is filled with competitively-priced 'specialty' items, like the iMac, Mac Mini, and Macbook (+pro).
I guess it depends on how you define "desktop". The iMac is more of a "desktop" machine, in the literal sense of the word, than is the Power Mac - the Power Mac in my office isn't on the top of my desk, it's underneath the desk. You could put a Power Mac tower on your desk, but if you put an iMac on the floor, you're not going to be able to use it conveniently from your desk (unless you ssh into it from a machine on your desk).
The iMac is the consumer "desktop" (as opposed to "laptop") model in the Apple line (although the Mac Mini could also be used with a monitor as a desktop); the Mac Pro or whatever it'll be called will be the "professional" desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? xnu doesn't have a "dmr" source directory - UN*Xs haven't had that since V6.
Sort of like what these guys are doing to the bunny?
Or, at least, about specific future hardware products. People presumably came away from WWDC 2005 with the specific information that most if not all future hardware products would have x86 processors in them.
But, yes, Apple doesn't do roadmaps, so you won't hear things such as "we'll be coming out with a quad-Kentsfield Mac mini in six months" at WWDC.
...for use on ATM machines, or for Internet access on DSL lines.
Of course, they'd also have to make them available for use on OSes built with Windows NT technology.
Bear in mind what the "D" in "WWDC" stands for - this is a somewhat more narrowly-targeted conference, so it would probably be used for a number of announcements that would mean nothing to much of the Apple customer base (an announcement of a new Core Fillintheblank facility coming in Leopard would probably go over the head of most Mac owners, for example).
Somebody should tell Nokia that. Of course, those are completely ridiculous phones, probably aimed at the sort of folks who'd buy a Maybach, so that's a bit above what Apple'd probably be interested in.
Well, people have already done a rotary-dial mobile phone, and some mobile phones support voice recognition, it might be amusing to have a mobile phone in an old-fashioned housing, with a crank input and voice recognition, so you'd turn the crank to activate the voice recognition and then tell it whom to call.
And it's also printed on receipts from local ATM machines.
Note the "is made up of women". That's not talking about getting women to use Fedora. It's talking about women already using Fedora.
It also says:
Note the "contributors". It's not talking about pushing women into contributing. It's talking about women who are already contributing.
It also says:
Note the "who are interested in working with the Fedora Project". It's not talking about pushing women into getting interested in Fedora. It's talking about women who are already interested in contributing.
So this is not the project to get the girls away from their cooking and sewing, haranguing them into instead developing driver patches even though they'd rather be knitting baby booties, that all too many of the responses seem to be treating it as.
You misspelled "boy".
The pink desktop background, of course, replacing the wallpaper with a warrior woman wearing chain-mail armor carefully designed to protect her crotch and the nipples on her 44DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD breasts.
And, of course, if something sounds plausible, it must be true....
Are you sure all men have an innate drive to be creative, rather than to, say, sit on the sofa and watch sports?
And where exactly is that happening here? The Wiki page for Fedora Women says:
I don't see any "HEY GIRLS CHECK THIS FEDORA CORE THING OUT!" message there - they speak of women already using Fedora.
It also says:
Note the "who are interested" part.
Could somebody please mark the parent post "+6 Clueful"? That's the first analogy I've seen that managed to draw a distinction between the "borrowing the connection for a quick check of e-mail" scenario that people have been citing when raining thunderous condemnation down on those Nasty Evil Blue Meanies turning people's pr0n upside down and the "acting as if they had some Inherent Moral Right to use your connection" scenario that I suspect the creator of the original hack was thinking of (and perhaps dealing with, but he might've just come up with it as a "proof of concept" hack) when he came up with it.
If a person doesn't want what some people insist on condemning as "childish pranks" played on them, that person should simply be polite, do as you do. and ask before connecting to somebody's network.
They also imply that anybody else who wants to listen to what you're sending on that network can do so - and they don't imply that the person who manages that network is obliged to turn your radio transmission into an IP datagram and forward it onto their network without molestation. (Heh. I'd like to see the Web accesses of the types vigorously defending joining "wide open" networks redirected to a site showing them the real meaning of "wide open", if you know what I mean and I think you do....)
As far as I'm concerned, unless you've asked the neighbors whether you may do so and they've said "yes", I'd say the answer is "yes, it's unethical". At minimum, I'd consider it impolite.
Portable Edition? I thought Firefox was already portable - it runs on Windows, various UN*X+X11 combinations, and OS X, right?
Not only does it tweak your neighbor, it also produces a high-pitched whining noise from people who choose to find it offensive to their moral sense.
One of the best responses to the "But no childish games please." bleat was the note that "Pranks are a big part of the hacker ethic." , which indicates that Electroschock's "understanding of hacker ethics" is a bit off. (Note that the prankster explicitly referred to this as an alternative to securing the network:
I.e., the network is "open" in the 802.11 sense, but isn't "open" in the sense that he wants people to be able to happily surf normally using his connection, or in the sense that you can expect your traffic through the network to be unmolested at any protocol level. Think of it, if you will, as a form of encryption. Yes, you can choose to view the act of not securing a network at the 802.11 level as an invitation to use the network as you please without any obligation on your part either to compensate the person providing the network or to provide a network others can use. You can also choose to view the act of not locking a bicycle as an invitation to use it as you please without any obligation to return it when you're done, compensate the person providing the bicycle, or provide a bicycle that others can use, but, if you do, in neither case would I take your moral views on that subject very seriously, and I suspect most other people - including, perhaps, even fans of free networks or bicycle-sharing programs - would do so, as moral views of that sort leave some people free of moral constraints on the issue in question.)
Electroschock's speaking of "P2P" in this context was also a bit off; he said "The net should be a net and wireless technology is great for the creation of a real P2P internet." "P" in "P2P" stands for "peer"; unless your neighbors are letting you use their wireless network, what's going on isn't peer-to-peer, it's somebody deciding that they're entitled to your bandwidth but they don't have to provide any bandwidth of their own.
In an ISP-less world of free networks, I think it'd be inappropriate to muck with the network access of people whose packets happen to be traversing your network if it's part of a free (inter)network. That's not a world people use ISPs to route their packets to the rest of the Intarweb, and in which some people use other people's ISP connections to route their packets to the rest of the Intarweb, however, and that's the world the prankster is speaking of.
Sure sounds like protectionism to me. Don't want any of that damn cheap imported porn ruining the domestic industry....
Wrong. Try looking at the bsd subdirectory of the xnu source tree; it's not "just BSD" - it implements processes/threads atop Mach tasks/threads, and has IOKit for drivers - but it's recognizably based on BSD kernel code."
It still uses BSD code for that.
More like PL/S. It was not one of the original OS/360 languages, however; see, for example, slide 20 of this presentation for an OS class, which says "In mid-1970s, IBM migrated to PL/S, a medium-level language".
If it's Cocoa, it's userland. There's both userland and kernel IOKit code.
The kernel IOKit code is in C++ (and I never said it wasn't; I said that it's not the case that all OS X kernel code was in C++).
The kernel-mode IOKit code is C++. However, not all of the kernel code is in C++; assuming that because IOKit is in C++ the entire kernel in C++ is, indeed, a mistake.
I suspect it wasn't explicitly mentioned in The Mythical Man-Month, given that it's not true. OS/360 was largely written in assembler.
I'm absolutely certain it's not true. Sign up for a free Apple Developer Connection "online" membership and you can look at the kernel source and be absolutely certain too.
I guess it depends on how you define "desktop". The iMac is more of a "desktop" machine, in the literal sense of the word, than is the Power Mac - the Power Mac in my office isn't on the top of my desk, it's underneath the desk. You could put a Power Mac tower on your desk, but if you put an iMac on the floor, you're not going to be able to use it conveniently from your desk (unless you ssh into it from a machine on your desk).
The iMac is the consumer "desktop" (as opposed to "laptop") model in the Apple line (although the Mac Mini could also be used with a monitor as a desktop); the Mac Pro or whatever it'll be called will be the "professional" desktop.