I have to disagree. There is such a thing as a legal monopoly. Apple has not pressured anyone to use their products. When you buy a mac, it doesn't come with an iPod (though I wish it did). Those who buy iPods are already buying into a closed system. As I said before, they know what they're getting. What would be illegal would be if iTunes/iPod started out open and then, after taking the market over, Apple later closed it, thereby killing their competitors. That's a major difference. It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly. If Apple is going to be sued for anti-competitive practices, the plaintiff is going to have to say more than just "Apple is being anti-competitive". If the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on, then Apple will counter-sue, and they'll probably win too.
First of all, Apple is not a PC maker, they are a systems maker. They are a vertically integrated company. They control the whole platform and they're completely upfront about that. When you buy a mac, you know what you're getting. In the case of Microsoft vs Netscape, that was about embrace and extend. Microsoft started out as being compatibile but added their own extensions which they kept closed. mix that in with a crappy html rendering engine, shady businesses practices and add a dash of Netscape incompetence and you have our present situation today.
Apple does not do this. They are "closed" and they make no bones about it. Also, because Apple makes its money from hardware and adds value via software, it also allows them to open-source some of their code. Anyway, because iTunes/iPod never started out as "open" to begin with, they can't be sued for anti-competetive business practices.
In the meantime, wrt the curent Real/Apple thing, I think it helps to look at the iPod as just a plug-in for iTunes. Anybody can download and use (as long as you use either OS X or Windows) iTunes and use it happily. I don't think most people would want to try using an iPod w/o iTunes however. Regardless of how this all plays out, you will not be able to sue Apple b/c the iTMS/iPod combo started off "closed" and stayed "closed". That's perfectly legal. What you're seeing here are the advantages of developing both the hardware and software. Real has plenty of time to catch up if they want. They can go build their own iPod killer and integrate that with their on-line music store.
I don't know about that one. Jobs himself has said that they'd love to make a $100 dollar iPod, they just don't know how to do it (I wish I had the URL). Maybe someday when they can actually keep up with demand:) they'll be able to do it.
don't get me wrong- I think the iPod is great. That having been said, this is just a minor revision to the existing product. Does that really warrent steve jobs being on the cover of newsweek?
It doen't even have to be mozilla. Any standard-compliant web browser will do just fine. The goal isn't for mozilla/firefox to take over the world, the goal is simply standards-compliant web-sites.
As a matter of fact, I do. I own about 300 CDs spanning about 100 years worth of music. Sometimes I'm in the mood for listening to, say, Tool. Other times, I'd rather listen to, say, leroy carr or tampa red. Or maybe the beatles, or maybe John Coltraine, or that new Aerosmith album, or Marshall Crenshaw or Robert Johnson or...
I don't own an iPod yet, but I plan to get one soon. I'm also aware that I'm an anomaly, but those of us that can even come close to filling 40GB are probably more than just casual listeners and we are out there.
Linux needs killer home-use apps that people can't do without, and also apps that businesses find economically viable to use and eventually rely on.
Okay, this is nothing against you but I need to get this off my chest.
I use mac os x but I keep an eye on Linux because I think the open source/free software is interesting. While I'm skeptical of it actually happening, I'd like to see Linux, in some form, become a solid desktop operating system.
In my mind, one of the most interesting things about open source is that is that, at least for the time being, the users are the developers and the developers are the users. That means that if Linux doesn't have something, it's because it's either being worked on, or it's simply not wanted/needed. If you want Linux to have something, go out and make it happen. Just saying Linux needs this or that (and I read those words way too often) accomplishes nothing. I wonder just how many slashdoters know how to program/develop software and I bet it's fewer than anybody here want's to admit. I also wonder how many slashdotters actually believe in the values of open source/free software and again, I'd be willing to bet that many here just don't want to pay for their software. Regardless of whether or not they actually contribute anything, they are still open source/free software developers too. For Linux to continue to improve, it is also their responsibility to contribute and I think that many do not accept that responsibility. Instead, I just read that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. Go out and make it happen. If you can't program, find some other way to make yourself useful. Help write documentation- do something, but don't just say that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. If you're not doing your part, then you don't have the right to say that.
"I can tell you how to make it worse, though. Any drugs affecting your brain somehow (like psychoactive or psychotropic drugs) could affect your memory. I know that Topamax and Zyprexa, both prescribed, shot my short-term memory to hell when I was taking them. I take Lamictal now, and my memory still isn't where it used to be."
It's interesting that you say that. The night of the millenium, I drank myself stupid (18 beers and didn't yak once). The next night, I started having seizures. According to my neurologist, the seizures I have don't originate in a specific part of my brain, they just occur all at once. Even more interesting is that after each seizure, I have pretty bad memory problems for a little while. Are there any neurologists on/.??? Anybody who might be able tell me what's really going on? Thanks
(btw, I also take lamictal now and my memory still sucks too)
Okay, we've established that quantum cryptography is, for all intents and purposes, immune to traditional attemps to break into encrypted data. Is it possible that quantum physics could also provide a mechanism for stealing the information without it being detected?
that is so true. when I first started taking information technology classes, we talked about why we all wanted to go into IT in the first place and probably 90% of the class said they just wanted to make money. if that's all they want, then more power to them, but I wonder if it will make it that much more difficult for them. I have a friend who went into IT classes not knowing a damn thing about computers but wanting to learn. For him, the money was just an added benefit. Two years after graduating now, he's just one rank below VP at a major multi-billion dollar company. At the end of the day, you have to have more than some idea of where you want to go. You also have to have a vehicle that can take you there.
Not only are you right, but it goes beyond user interfaces. I'm a mac user but I install linux on my old pc every now and then to see what kind of progress you guys are making. My latest dist to evaluate is Ark Linux which is supposedly being built specifically for the desktop. Ark bundles KDE but not GNOME. One of the things that's really gotten to me is the process of choosing an application to open a file. What would be nice would be if I could just be presented with a list of installed programs that are able to open the file. There's far more to ease-of-use than GUI design. I suggest some of you read up on some HCI books.
I do think that it's possible to get linux to the point where it can be ready for the non-technical user's desktop, but I also fear that making that happen will end up stripping out everthing that linux (and most of open source) stands for. (Forking, in particular just won't work.) If the community can get behind that idea though, linux on the desktop should be doable.
this is actually a very easy question to answer. it's easy to say, well, why did he release it if he's really sorry. the answer is that he would have to be aware in advance of all the trouble it would cause and what all the fallout would be. he would have to be very farsighted to predict all this (linux fans being accused by SCO, SCO accusing linux fans and so on and so forth) and that's simply not likely at all. that is why the messsage is real.
yeah, I thought about that right after I hit the post button. I find it amazing that, for all the time and effort that has been put into them, both KDE and GNOME act like nothing more than fancy interfaces to the command line and that the file browser doesn't really serve any useful purpose. Maybe it's just going to take a whole new set of APIs to make them work like a real GUI. Does anyone know if the SkyOS GUI behaves like windows explorer or the mac finder? or is it just another interface to the command line.
I have to agree. The project is impressive, but what advantages does/will it actually bring? According to the article, the file manager looks and behaves like windows explorer- just like all the other free Linux GUIs. So from the user's perspective, what advantages do SkyOS (and by extension, KDE and GNOME) bring?
the hell with getting to/winning the world series. let's just beat the yankees first. I bet that just by beating the yankees in something significant (either winning the division series in the final game of the season to keep them out of the playoffs or beating them in the playoffs) we can break the curse.
Personally, I think the whole security (or lack thereof) thing will what shrinks MS considerably. In its current form, I don't think that even Microsoft has the resources to make windows suffiently secure, and I don't think they have the stones to dump the whole thing, start from scratch, and build a new, more modular version. Personally, I'd like to see MS come out with quality products. If we're going to have to use them, they might as well be decent products, even if they aren't opensource (and I don't believe that open source is the answer to every question. It's not going to cure cancer, it's not going to catch Bin Ladin, and it's certainly not the answer to the meaning of life (don't bother with the hitch-hiker's guide reference)). So, to all you skript-kiddes out there, if you really want to accelerate the downfall of MS, keep writing those worms and viruses. Causing the US economy to lose billions and billions of dollars is worth it if MS falls, right? (and it just might be)
I finally decided that I couldn't deal with windows anymore, so I dumped it and installed linux. So far it's been a learning experience, mostly positive although I did have an experience that I thought I should share with the community.
I'd long been aware of the issues of resolving dependencies when installing/compiling new software. When I tried to download and compile mplayer, I got it to configure just fine, but when I went to compile it, the compile failed. My assumption was that it was a missing library or something like that. As a result, I didn't bother to actually read the error that came out on the screen- after all, it had to be a user error, right? Once I finally learned that there was log I could look through to see what had happened, I saw that there was, indeed a missing file, but it wasn't a library or something that I had to install. When I looked in the specified path, I saw, that indeed, the file was missing. At that moment, I was able to learn the difference between a bug and user error! It dawned on me that maybe it wasn't my fault that the software wouldnt' compile.
The point of all this is that there should be a newbie guide to help all of us noobs be able to tell when we've made a mistake and when it is, in fact, a bug. If someone wants to create such a document with me, I think it would be great. Email me if you're interested in doing something like this at deschust@syr.edu. thanks
Re:Now I know we love apple and hate the RIAA, but
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're not the first slashdotter to ask that question, but think about it. How many Apple is dying trolls do you see every time a new apple story comes out? the iTMS/iPod are as much about profits as they are about getting the Apple name out there and telling people that it's okay to buy Apple products and that they're not going out of business. It's all about making the Apple name cool, and that iTMS/iPod go a very long way toward making that happen.
while I agree that it's a long way from programming to development, I think the goal here is to teach programming. Kids don't have the mathematical skills necessary to do serious development anyway which is why really high-level scripting languages are probably a good place to start. Unfortunately, there really is no good scripting language to start with that will hold a kid's attention. I had initially thought that perhapes a language like AppleScript might be an okay place to start, but I think that kids will find it too limited in terms of functionality.
The reality is, there's no magic bullet. Each language has its own niche and none of the current options really helps a kid who's interested in programming to learn. And to those who have suggested that using games to teach programming could be effective, all that will do is teach kids who aren't really interested in learning in the first place. Then again, that's just my opion, I could be wrong.
You've pretty much nailed the whole issue. At the end of the day, multiple mouse buttons are neither good design or bad design. In some situations, they're a good idea and in other situations, they're not necessary. An earlier poster postulated that Apple chose a one-button mouse for ergonamic reasons and that turns out to be accurate. It's also the same reason that they don't ship a mouse with a scroll wheel. Yes, it's faster, but the movement isn't natural.
You may or may not agree that designing for novice users is a good idea, but the fact is, that's who Apple has designed for. This means that they design their software with learnability in mind. This also means that designing the system for one mouse button is the right design decision. Anyone who's ever had to point out the very existence of the right button to a novice user should understand this. Why does the user not realize there's a second mouse button? It's because the movement is unnatural and so it doesn't occur to them. I prefer a multi-button mouse myself, but I'll never suggest one for my mom.
Are you an idiot or a troll? (Is there a difference?) For those (hopefully few) who don't know, it was Bon Scott that was the AC/DC front man and John Bonham played drums in Led Zeppelin. As it turns out, both are now dead, though AC/DC continues to rock. Brian Johnson is no Bon Scott, but he's good enough to keep AC/DC hella fun to listen to.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree. There is such a thing as a legal monopoly. Apple has not pressured anyone to use their products. When you buy a mac, it doesn't come with an iPod (though I wish it did). Those who buy iPods are already buying into a closed system. As I said before, they know what they're getting. What would be illegal would be if iTunes/iPod started out open and then, after taking the market over, Apple later closed it, thereby killing their competitors. That's a major difference. It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly. If Apple is going to be sued for anti-competitive practices, the plaintiff is going to have to say more than just "Apple is being anti-competitive". If the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on, then Apple will counter-sue, and they'll probably win too.
well, it's not quite that simple...
First of all, Apple is not a PC maker, they are a systems maker. They are a vertically integrated company. They control the whole platform and they're completely upfront about that. When you buy a mac, you know what you're getting. In the case of Microsoft vs Netscape, that was about embrace and extend. Microsoft started out as being compatibile but added their own extensions which they kept closed. mix that in with a crappy html rendering engine, shady businesses practices and add a dash of Netscape incompetence and you have our present situation today.
Apple does not do this. They are "closed" and they make no bones about it. Also, because Apple makes its money from hardware and adds value via software, it also allows them to open-source some of their code. Anyway, because iTunes/iPod never started out as "open" to begin with, they can't be sued for anti-competetive business practices.
In the meantime, wrt the curent Real/Apple thing, I think it helps to look at the iPod as just a plug-in for iTunes. Anybody can download and use (as long as you use either OS X or Windows) iTunes and use it happily. I don't think most people would want to try using an iPod w/o iTunes however. Regardless of how this all plays out, you will not be able to sue Apple b/c the iTMS/iPod combo started off "closed" and stayed "closed". That's perfectly legal. What you're seeing here are the advantages of developing both the hardware and software. Real has plenty of time to catch up if they want. They can go build their own iPod killer and integrate that with their on-line music store.
okay, next question. what looks worse? steve jobs' pic on newsweek or the steve ballmer face-shot on news.com?
I don't know about that one. Jobs himself has said that they'd love to make a $100 dollar iPod, they just don't know how to do it (I wish I had the URL). Maybe someday when they can actually keep up with demand :) they'll be able to do it.
don't get me wrong- I think the iPod is great. That having been said, this is just a minor revision to the existing product. Does that really warrent steve jobs being on the cover of newsweek?
It doen't even have to be mozilla. Any standard-compliant web browser will do just fine. The goal isn't for mozilla/firefox to take over the world, the goal is simply standards-compliant web-sites.
hmm, I wonder if they could put in some kind of IE "compatibility layer" for those sites that just have to have IE.
As a matter of fact, I do. I own about 300 CDs spanning about 100 years worth of music. Sometimes I'm in the mood for listening to, say, Tool. Other times, I'd rather listen to, say, leroy carr or tampa red. Or maybe the beatles, or maybe John Coltraine, or that new Aerosmith album, or Marshall Crenshaw or Robert Johnson or ...
I don't own an iPod yet, but I plan to get one soon. I'm also aware that I'm an anomaly, but those of us that can even come close to filling 40GB are probably more than just casual listeners and we are out there.
Okay, this is nothing against you but I need to get this off my chest.
I use mac os x but I keep an eye on Linux because I think the open source/free software is interesting. While I'm skeptical of it actually happening, I'd like to see Linux, in some form, become a solid desktop operating system.
In my mind, one of the most interesting things about open source is that is that, at least for the time being, the users are the developers and the developers are the users. That means that if Linux doesn't have something, it's because it's either being worked on, or it's simply not wanted/needed. If you want Linux to have something, go out and make it happen. Just saying Linux needs this or that (and I read those words way too often) accomplishes nothing. I wonder just how many slashdoters know how to program/develop software and I bet it's fewer than anybody here want's to admit. I also wonder how many slashdotters actually believe in the values of open source/free software and again, I'd be willing to bet that many here just don't want to pay for their software. Regardless of whether or not they actually contribute anything, they are still open source/free software developers too. For Linux to continue to improve, it is also their responsibility to contribute and I think that many do not accept that responsibility. Instead, I just read that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. Go out and make it happen. If you can't program, find some other way to make yourself useful. Help write documentation- do something, but don't just say that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. If you're not doing your part, then you don't have the right to say that.
Good luck boys
"I can tell you how to make it worse, though. Any drugs affecting your brain somehow (like psychoactive or psychotropic drugs) could affect your memory. I know that Topamax and Zyprexa, both prescribed, shot my short-term memory to hell when I was taking them. I take Lamictal now, and my memory still isn't where it used to be."
/.??? Anybody who might be able tell me what's really going on? Thanks
It's interesting that you say that. The night of the millenium, I drank myself stupid (18 beers and didn't yak once). The next night, I started having seizures. According to my neurologist, the seizures I have don't originate in a specific part of my brain, they just occur all at once. Even more interesting is that after each seizure, I have pretty bad memory problems for a little while. Are there any neurologists on
(btw, I also take lamictal now and my memory still sucks too)
Okay, we've established that quantum cryptography is, for all intents and purposes, immune to traditional attemps to break into encrypted data. Is it possible that quantum physics could also provide a mechanism for stealing the information without it being detected?
I think he heard steve try to pronouce jaguar one too many times
that is so true. when I first started taking information technology classes, we talked about why we all wanted to go into IT in the first place and probably 90% of the class said they just wanted to make money. if that's all they want, then more power to them, but I wonder if it will make it that much more difficult for them. I have a friend who went into IT classes not knowing a damn thing about computers but wanting to learn. For him, the money was just an added benefit. Two years after graduating now, he's just one rank below VP at a major multi-billion dollar company. At the end of the day, you have to have more than some idea of where you want to go. You also have to have a vehicle that can take you there.
Not only are you right, but it goes beyond user interfaces. I'm a mac user but I install linux on my old pc every now and then to see what kind of progress you guys are making. My latest dist to evaluate is Ark Linux which is supposedly being built specifically for the desktop. Ark bundles KDE but not GNOME. One of the things that's really gotten to me is the process of choosing an application to open a file. What would be nice would be if I could just be presented with a list of installed programs that are able to open the file. There's far more to ease-of-use than GUI design. I suggest some of you read up on some HCI books.
I do think that it's possible to get linux to the point where it can be ready for the non-technical user's desktop, but I also fear that making that happen will end up stripping out everthing that linux (and most of open source) stands for. (Forking, in particular just won't work.) If the community can get behind that idea though, linux on the desktop should be doable.
this is actually a very easy question to answer. it's easy to say, well, why did he release it if he's really sorry. the answer is that he would have to be aware in advance of all the trouble it would cause and what all the fallout would be. he would have to be very farsighted to predict all this (linux fans being accused by SCO, SCO accusing linux fans and so on and so forth) and that's simply not likely at all. that is why the messsage is real.
-dan
yeah, I thought about that right after I hit the post button. I find it amazing that, for all the time and effort that has been put into them, both KDE and GNOME act like nothing more than fancy interfaces to the command line and that the file browser doesn't really serve any useful purpose. Maybe it's just going to take a whole new set of APIs to make them work like a real GUI. Does anyone know if the SkyOS GUI behaves like windows explorer or the mac finder? or is it just another interface to the command line.
I have to agree. The project is impressive, but what advantages does/will it actually bring? According to the article, the file manager looks and behaves like windows explorer- just like all the other free Linux GUIs. So from the user's perspective, what advantages do SkyOS (and by extension, KDE and GNOME) bring?
the hell with getting to/winning the world series. let's just beat the yankees first. I bet that just by beating the yankees in something significant (either winning the division series in the final game of the season to keep them out of the playoffs or beating them in the playoffs) we can break the curse.
Personally, I think the whole security (or lack thereof) thing will what shrinks MS considerably. In its current form, I don't think that even Microsoft has the resources to make windows suffiently secure, and I don't think they have the stones to dump the whole thing, start from scratch, and build a new, more modular version. Personally, I'd like to see MS come out with quality products. If we're going to have to use them, they might as well be decent products, even if they aren't opensource (and I don't believe that open source is the answer to every question. It's not going to cure cancer, it's not going to catch Bin Ladin, and it's certainly not the answer to the meaning of life (don't bother with the hitch-hiker's guide reference)). So, to all you skript-kiddes out there, if you really want to accelerate the downfall of MS, keep writing those worms and viruses. Causing the US economy to lose billions and billions of dollars is worth it if MS falls, right? (and it just might be)
I finally decided that I couldn't deal with windows anymore, so I dumped it and installed linux. So far it's been a learning experience, mostly positive although I did have an experience that I thought I should share with the community.
I'd long been aware of the issues of resolving dependencies when installing/compiling new software. When I tried to download and compile mplayer, I got it to configure just fine, but when I went to compile it, the compile failed. My assumption was that it was a missing library or something like that. As a result, I didn't bother to actually read the error that came out on the screen- after all, it had to be a user error, right? Once I finally learned that there was log I could look through to see what had happened, I saw that there was, indeed a missing file, but it wasn't a library or something that I had to install. When I looked in the specified path, I saw, that indeed, the file was missing. At that moment, I was able to learn the difference between a bug and user error! It dawned on me that maybe it wasn't my fault that the software wouldnt' compile.
The point of all this is that there should be a newbie guide to help all of us noobs be able to tell when we've made a mistake and when it is, in fact, a bug. If someone wants to create such a document with me, I think it would be great. Email me if you're interested in doing something like this at deschust@syr.edu. thanks
You're not the first slashdotter to ask that question, but think about it. How many Apple is dying trolls do you see every time a new apple story comes out? the iTMS/iPod are as much about profits as they are about getting the Apple name out there and telling people that it's okay to buy Apple products and that they're not going out of business. It's all about making the Apple name cool, and that iTMS/iPod go a very long way toward making that happen.
while I agree that it's a long way from programming to development, I think the goal here is to teach programming. Kids don't have the mathematical skills necessary to do serious development anyway which is why really high-level scripting languages are probably a good place to start. Unfortunately, there really is no good scripting language to start with that will hold a kid's attention. I had initially thought that perhapes a language like AppleScript might be an okay place to start, but I think that kids will find it too limited in terms of functionality.
The reality is, there's no magic bullet. Each language has its own niche and none of the current options really helps a kid who's interested in programming to learn. And to those who have suggested that using games to teach programming could be effective, all that will do is teach kids who aren't really interested in learning in the first place. Then again, that's just my opion, I could be wrong.
all I want to know is, what labels have they signed up yet? I'm betting the big 5 aren't going to be as enthusiastic about working with real on this
You've pretty much nailed the whole issue. At the end of the day, multiple mouse buttons are neither good design or bad design. In some situations, they're a good idea and in other situations, they're not necessary. An earlier poster postulated that Apple chose a one-button mouse for ergonamic reasons and that turns out to be accurate. It's also the same reason that they don't ship a mouse with a scroll wheel. Yes, it's faster, but the movement isn't natural.
You may or may not agree that designing for novice users is a good idea, but the fact is, that's who Apple has designed for. This means that they design their software with learnability in mind. This also means that designing the system for one mouse button is the right design decision. Anyone who's ever had to point out the very existence of the right button to a novice user should understand this. Why does the user not realize there's a second mouse button? It's because the movement is unnatural and so it doesn't occur to them. I prefer a multi-button mouse myself, but I'll never suggest one for my mom.
Are you an idiot or a troll? (Is there a difference?) For those (hopefully few) who don't know, it was Bon Scott that was the AC/DC front man and John Bonham played drums in Led Zeppelin. As it turns out, both are now dead, though AC/DC continues to rock. Brian Johnson is no Bon Scott, but he's good enough to keep AC/DC hella fun to listen to.