The current rumor on the grapevine suggests that Apple may not release a true G5 chip this year. Instead, the next iteration of the G4 might be rebranded as the G5. This puts the likely hood of a true G5 release at MacWorld San Francisco. I'm trying to hold out for a true G5 myself but my G3 is showing its age. Hopefully Mac OS X 10.2 will bring me a nice speed boost.
"The problem with the/. moderation system is that it exists."
no, the problem isn't that/. moderation exists. the problem is that it tries to rate the quality of posts. as far as I'm concerned, there are two kinds of posts: on-topic posts and off-topic posts. the rest of it is just someone's personal opinion.
it's actually very easy to bypass aqua. simply login as >console and you'll be dropped into a text console. Install XFree 4.2 and your window manager of choice, many (though not all) have already been ported. you are now in *nix on PPC heaven. as another poster mentioned, you can run XDarwin as well, but if you're not going to use any mac os x apps, why bother leaving aqua running?
hey, I remember using SimplePPP!!! Oh, does this bring back memories. SimplePPP was a great PPP stack though. As I recall it was faster than FreePPP, and easier to configure. I think the last version I used was 1.3. I used to have problems with FreePPP crashing so I used SimplePPP for about a year or so. I don't remember why I stopped using it. Thanks for the trip down memory lane though.
Actually, I'd say that they're not "offically" supporting XP because XP has no business being on a consumer's computer. I have both XP and road runner and everything works fine however, directly below all the wizards in XP is pure Win2K- the network control panel is the exact same one in 2K. My first thought when I saw that was pitty for the poor highschool student working for the mom and pop ISP that has to support Joe Consumer and his XP box when something goes wrong. Now, Road Runner is, of course, not a mom and pop ISP but I'd be willing to bet that they're acting on the same theory.
yeah, and root 5s for those cheesy punk tunes. I spend most of my time these days studying the texas shuffle stuff though as well as anything by john lee hooker and elmore james. 12/8 time rocks, it's so much more fun than 4/4.
That's pretty much right on target. Old music sounds amazing on fuzzy-sounding analog equipment. A friend of mine has a mint copy of the London Howlin' Wolf Sessions and an old, but still fully fuctional record player. You haven't lived until you've heard Eric Clapton's Highway 49 guitar work on this thing. I've been able to duplicate a lot of the sound of that setup by running my kenwood discman into my guitar amp, a Peavey Bandit 112. It's not a tube amp, but it was designed to sound like one. My bandit came with a mono pre-amp in, but making it a stereo input was just a matter of changing the jack. I also found that 1/4in and 1/8in cables produce better volume and sound far better than RCA cables. It still can't compete with the feel of a good turntable, but the sound is there. Does anyone know of a CD player that's been designed to have that fuzzy analog feel? Thanks in advance.
it is included with the computer. all macs will continue to ship with mac os 9.1 which can play dvds and write to dvd and cdr disks. mac os x will not be preloaded until august and at that time, iDvd and iTunes will both be mac os x native.
I have a better question for you. Should it be illegal to swap music that's copyrighted but no longer in print? It's almost like the RIAA wants to tell you what you can and can't listen to.
okay, I made a bad analogy. my thinking was that the government would certify software that would be sold in this country and was of acceptable quality. it would exist just so that we have some kind of body that can set the standard for appropriate quality. This, imho, would benefit everybody since proprietary software is almost certainly not going away and we may as well learn to deal with it. This isn't to say Free software is perfect (there is some good code and some bad code) but a lot of proprietary software is out of control.
It baffles me when people accept buggy, hard-to-use software as a fact of life. When I think about damage to consumers though, I think about lost productivity. (Most people think of companies when they think of productivity but consumers often lose productivity when software crashes too.) Are there any consumers besides me out there that remember using Apple IIs? They didn't crash and their software didn't crash. Hell, even 'ol MS DOS and Volkswriter never crashed. So at what point did buggy crash-prone software become acceptable? My LCII running System 7 never once crashed on me (and that could run MS Word 5.1a which was a great program and was really all the word processor most people would ever need). But Mac OS 9 crashes (Mac OS X PB does not) and Windows 98SE crashes so I put Windows 2000 on my PC. It still crahes (it needs more RAM, I only have 128MB). On top of that, there are still all the security problems that the previous poster talked about. Can anyone name another industry where people just consider it a fact of life when the product needs to be turned off and then turned back on so it can be used again? If MS guilty of any one crime (and they're not the only ones guilty of this), it's that they've taught people to tolerate and even accept or defend a poorly made product. I hate government involvement as much as the next/. reader but does anybody besides me think that the software equivalent of the FDA might be necessary?
What kind of a conservative (read:mindless) anal bloke are you, anyway?
okay, it's off topic, but I have to respond to this. as a "conservitive" living in the northeast, I see this all the time where everybody is a "liberal" because they want their social freedom. that's not what the terms mean. if you're conservitive, then you believe in small government. if you're liberal, you believe in big government. the deffinitions stop there. what's happened is that the terms have also come to describe social beliefs and that's what most people think of when they think of conservitive or liberal. given the correct deffinition of these terms, however, it seems to me that most/.ers would actually be conservitives. it is the people who want to expand the size of the government that want to dictate yet more of your daily life to you. I'm about as pissed off at GW right now as anybody else here, but at least under him, we should get a smaller government, and that's a good thing, imho, and anybody here who voted for Browne should agree because otherwise, you're the sheep here.
actually, you're absolutely right. Time figured out a while ago that they were going to give Person of the Year to whoever won the election. I heard it on MSNBC or CNN or one of those stations.
I can answer this one for you. FWIW, I owned MS when it was 16/share and Intel at 20/share. This was a number of years ago however and I sold my shares earlier this year.
I am not putting any more money into the tech stocks. I'm sticking with the old money on the NYSE. There's something to be said for the tried and true and now that demand is for PCs is slumping (with the home market only about 55% saturated) all the techs are going to take a hit. All the OSS companies have taken hits too, because they're tech stocks. I have to admit, Red Hat is a tempting buy at 6/share but I'm not going to do it, not becuase I think Red Hat won't recover- I think that they'll do just fine, but because I simply think there are better places to put my money right now. The minute I think Red Hat would be the right addition to my portfolio, I'll add it and until then, I'm going to hold off.
It's funny you say that. I've long believed that the next great advance in GUI design will be document-centric GUIs. I still wish Apple had OpenDoc-enabled the finder. The neat thing about a document-centric model is that it more closely mimics how we work with pen and paper at our desk. For example, we can use just about any writing implement on a piece of paper. If we make a mistake, we can use any kind of whiteout or eraser we want. Simmilarly, in a document centric model, we're not tied to a specific vendor's implementation of a feature. A common example is the ability to replace the built-in spellchecker with another one that's better suited to the task.
While this is obviously a more natural way to work, there are a couple of issues. One issue is that it's a different way to work. It's very likely that novices will have issues, adjusting to a different way to work. The other, much larger issue is that of tech support. If I replace the spell checker in Nisus Writer with some other company's spell checker and there's a conflict between the two, who do I call for tech support? My hunch is that the real reason OpenDoc never got popular was becuase this question was never answered. Still, I think that document-centric GUIs are the future, if for no other reason than they have the potential to break MS's monopoly on file formats.
AYE!!!! A thousand times, AYE!!!! Our two groups have so much to learn from each other. I continue to maintain the hope that Mac OS X/Darwin will become the ideal operating system for the desktop while linux/bsd will rule the server. Would this not be a wonderful senario? Is there anyone who really believes that linux can be adapted to the desktop? Is there any good reason to do this? Likewise, is there any good reason to make the mac into a high-end server? Let's just do what our groups do best and focus on our strenths. Linux doesn't need the desktop and the mac doesn't need the server. Let's work together to bring quality software to everyone, not just techies, not just the elite, but everyone.
Well, fwiw, I am Jewish and I find those Jewish Conspiracy theroies to be quite entertaining. That said, I think you're correct, there are some people who post here who simply shouldn't be allowed to post.
Now the quesion becomes, what is the criteria for determining if a post should be censored. You and I would probably say common sense execpt that common sense means different things to different people. I would suggest that there's a difference between the tasteful/funny trolls (ie. porman/grits trolls) and the people who post stuff that is offensive, gross, etc. The later group should be moderated down to (-2). The following is just one example of a (-2) quality post:
J0hN K47Z 5uCk5 b1G H41rY B4115
I think there needs to be a -2 because some of this stuff just doesn't need to be seen and just wastes bandwidth. Maybe if the kiddies that post that post this stuff got moderated all the way down to hell, they'd stop coming here.
I would also suggest that they make a requirement that people have an account in order to post. People can still post anonymously if they want, but since you now have their account behind it, you can still assign them karma ratings. We'll have to assume that the moderators will be able to distinguish -1 quality posts from -2 quality posts (I'd like to think they can) but maybe, just maybe, if things work out, all the trolls will just go away. Sorry for the off-topic post, btw.
I always thought it ironic that Morissette, who was formerly a failed canadian pop singer, found success singing "alternative" music. IMHO, mall-ternative is the better word. Sorry for the off-topic post.
Pop Quiz: who here knows what a backdoor man actually is? (Hint: it comes from the old, southern, black dialect. It is also used in a song called, appropriately enough, Backdoor Man. A line from it goes like this: "Well the men don't know but the little girls understand")
I'll give you a hint: when the linux/oss community shows that they can create a UE (user experience, not user interface) on the level of Aqua, then Aqua will no longer be unique. The only pieces of mac os x that aren't being open sourced are the pieces that make it unique.
Slashdot Mirror
The current rumor on the grapevine suggests that Apple may not release a true G5 chip this year. Instead, the next iteration of the G4 might be rebranded as the G5. This puts the likely hood of a true G5 release at MacWorld San Francisco. I'm trying to hold out for a true G5 myself but my G3 is showing its age. Hopefully Mac OS X 10.2 will bring me a nice speed boost.
"The problem with the /. moderation system is that it exists."
/. moderation exists. the problem is that it tries to rate the quality of posts. as far as I'm concerned, there are two kinds of posts: on-topic posts and off-topic posts. the rest of it is just someone's personal opinion.
no, the problem isn't that
it's actually very easy to bypass aqua. simply login as >console and you'll be dropped into a text console. Install XFree 4.2 and your window manager of choice, many (though not all) have already been ported. you are now in *nix on PPC heaven. as another poster mentioned, you can run XDarwin as well, but if you're not going to use any mac os x apps, why bother leaving aqua running?
hey, I remember using SimplePPP!!! Oh, does this bring back memories. SimplePPP was a great PPP stack though. As I recall it was faster than FreePPP, and easier to configure. I think the last version I used was 1.3. I used to have problems with FreePPP crashing so I used SimplePPP for about a year or so. I don't remember why I stopped using it. Thanks for the trip down memory lane though.
Actually, I'd say that they're not "offically" supporting XP because XP has no business being on a consumer's computer. I have both XP and road runner and everything works fine however, directly below all the wizards in XP is pure Win2K- the network control panel is the exact same one in 2K. My first thought when I saw that was pitty for the poor highschool student working for the mom and pop ISP that has to support Joe Consumer and his XP box when something goes wrong. Now, Road Runner is, of course, not a mom and pop ISP but I'd be willing to bet that they're acting on the same theory.
yeah, and root 5s for those cheesy punk tunes. I spend most of my time these days studying the texas shuffle stuff though as well as anything by john lee hooker and elmore james. 12/8 time rocks, it's so much more fun than 4/4.
hmm, well, the way I see it, those three chords were good enough for the Troggs so they're good enough for me.
Effect can be a verb too. I can "effect repair" of a device.
no, you can "affect" repair of a device
I am a backdoor man
I am a backdoor man
Well the men don't know
But the little girls understand
can't get any more direct than that
That's pretty much right on target. Old music sounds amazing on fuzzy-sounding analog equipment. A friend of mine has a mint copy of the London Howlin' Wolf Sessions and an old, but still fully fuctional record player. You haven't lived until you've heard Eric Clapton's Highway 49 guitar work on this thing. I've been able to duplicate a lot of the sound of that setup by running my kenwood discman into my guitar amp, a Peavey Bandit 112. It's not a tube amp, but it was designed to sound like one. My bandit came with a mono pre-amp in, but making it a stereo input was just a matter of changing the jack. I also found that 1/4in and 1/8in cables produce better volume and sound far better than RCA cables. It still can't compete with the feel of a good turntable, but the sound is there. Does anyone know of a CD player that's been designed to have that fuzzy analog feel? Thanks in advance.
it is included with the computer. all macs will continue to ship with mac os 9.1 which can play dvds and write to dvd and cdr disks. mac os x will not be preloaded until august and at that time, iDvd and iTunes will both be mac os x native.
I have a better question for you. Should it be illegal to swap music that's copyrighted but no longer in print? It's almost like the RIAA wants to tell you what you can and can't listen to.
okay, I made a bad analogy. my thinking was that the government would certify software that would be sold in this country and was of acceptable quality. it would exist just so that we have some kind of body that can set the standard for appropriate quality. This, imho, would benefit everybody since proprietary software is almost certainly not going away and we may as well learn to deal with it. This isn't to say Free software is perfect (there is some good code and some bad code) but a lot of proprietary software is out of control.
Here Here!!!
/. reader but does anybody besides me think that the software equivalent of the FDA might be necessary?
It baffles me when people accept buggy, hard-to-use software as a fact of life. When I think about damage to consumers though, I think about lost productivity. (Most people think of companies when they think of productivity but consumers often lose productivity when software crashes too.) Are there any consumers besides me out there that remember using Apple IIs? They didn't crash and their software didn't crash. Hell, even 'ol MS DOS and Volkswriter never crashed. So at what point did buggy crash-prone software become acceptable? My LCII running System 7 never once crashed on me (and that could run MS Word 5.1a which was a great program and was really all the word processor most people would ever need). But Mac OS 9 crashes (Mac OS X PB does not) and Windows 98SE crashes so I put Windows 2000 on my PC. It still crahes (it needs more RAM, I only have 128MB). On top of that, there are still all the security problems that the previous poster talked about. Can anyone name another industry where people just consider it a fact of life when the product needs to be turned off and then turned back on so it can be used again? If MS guilty of any one crime (and they're not the only ones guilty of this), it's that they've taught people to tolerate and even accept or defend a poorly made product. I hate government involvement as much as the next
What kind of a conservative (read:mindless) anal bloke are you, anyway?
/.ers would actually be conservitives. it is the people who want to expand the size of the government that want to dictate yet more of your daily life to you. I'm about as pissed off at GW right now as anybody else here, but at least under him, we should get a smaller government, and that's a good thing, imho, and anybody here who voted for Browne should agree because otherwise, you're the sheep here.
okay, it's off topic, but I have to respond to this. as a "conservitive" living in the northeast, I see this all the time where everybody is a "liberal" because they want their social freedom. that's not what the terms mean. if you're conservitive, then you believe in small government. if you're liberal, you believe in big government. the deffinitions stop there. what's happened is that the terms have also come to describe social beliefs and that's what most people think of when they think of conservitive or liberal. given the correct deffinition of these terms, however, it seems to me that most
actually, you're absolutely right. Time figured out a while ago that they were going to give Person of the Year to whoever won the election. I heard it on MSNBC or CNN or one of those stations.
Max, in America, it's customary to drive on the right.
It's turning into a damn police state, Sam!
Heh, that's the greatest comic ever, still makes me laugh.
-Dan the drunk
I can answer this one for you. FWIW, I owned MS when it was 16/share and Intel at 20/share. This was a number of years ago however and I sold my shares earlier this year.
I am not putting any more money into the tech stocks. I'm sticking with the old money on the NYSE. There's something to be said for the tried and true and now that demand is for PCs is slumping (with the home market only about 55% saturated) all the techs are going to take a hit. All the OSS companies have taken hits too, because they're tech stocks. I have to admit, Red Hat is a tempting buy at 6/share but I'm not going to do it, not becuase I think Red Hat won't recover- I think that they'll do just fine, but because I simply think there are better places to put my money right now. The minute I think Red Hat would be the right addition to my portfolio, I'll add it and until then, I'm going to hold off.
It's funny you say that. I've long believed that the next great advance in GUI design will be document-centric GUIs. I still wish Apple had OpenDoc-enabled the finder. The neat thing about a document-centric model is that it more closely mimics how we work with pen and paper at our desk. For example, we can use just about any writing implement on a piece of paper. If we make a mistake, we can use any kind of whiteout or eraser we want. Simmilarly, in a document centric model, we're not tied to a specific vendor's implementation of a feature. A common example is the ability to replace the built-in spellchecker with another one that's better suited to the task.
While this is obviously a more natural way to work, there are a couple of issues. One issue is that it's a different way to work. It's very likely that novices will have issues, adjusting to a different way to work. The other, much larger issue is that of tech support. If I replace the spell checker in Nisus Writer with some other company's spell checker and there's a conflict between the two, who do I call for tech support? My hunch is that the real reason OpenDoc never got popular was becuase this question was never answered. Still, I think that document-centric GUIs are the future, if for no other reason than they have the potential to break MS's monopoly on file formats.
AYE!!!! A thousand times, AYE!!!! Our two groups have so much to learn from each other. I continue to maintain the hope that Mac OS X/Darwin will become the ideal operating system for the desktop while linux/bsd will rule the server. Would this not be a wonderful senario? Is there anyone who really believes that linux can be adapted to the desktop? Is there any good reason to do this? Likewise, is there any good reason to make the mac into a high-end server? Let's just do what our groups do best and focus on our strenths. Linux doesn't need the desktop and the mac doesn't need the server. Let's work together to bring quality software to everyone, not just techies, not just the elite, but everyone.
Ladies and gentelman of this supposed jury, this is chewbaca....
Well, fwiw, I am Jewish and I find those Jewish Conspiracy theroies to be quite entertaining. That said, I think you're correct, there are some people who post here who simply shouldn't be allowed to post.
Now the quesion becomes, what is the criteria for determining if a post should be censored. You and I would probably say common sense execpt that common sense means different things to different people. I would suggest that there's a difference between the tasteful/funny trolls (ie. porman/grits trolls) and the people who post stuff that is offensive, gross, etc. The later group should be moderated down to (-2). The following is just one example of a (-2) quality post:
J0hN K47Z 5uCk5 b1G H41rY B4115
I think there needs to be a -2 because some of this stuff just doesn't need to be seen and just wastes bandwidth. Maybe if the kiddies that post that post this stuff got moderated all the way down to hell, they'd stop coming here.
I would also suggest that they make a requirement that people have an account in order to post. People can still post anonymously if they want, but since you now have their account behind it, you can still assign them karma ratings. We'll have to assume that the moderators will be able to distinguish -1 quality posts from -2 quality posts (I'd like to think they can) but maybe, just maybe, if things work out, all the trolls will just go away. Sorry for the off-topic post, btw.
I always thought it ironic that Morissette, who was formerly a failed canadian pop singer, found success singing "alternative" music. IMHO, mall-ternative is the better word. Sorry for the off-topic post.
that last Brittany Spears or Backdoor Boys song.
Pop Quiz: who here knows what a backdoor man actually is? (Hint: it comes from the old, southern, black dialect. It is also used in a song called, appropriately enough, Backdoor Man. A line from it goes like this: "Well the men don't know but the little girls understand")
I'll give you a hint: when the linux/oss community shows that they can create a UE (user experience, not user interface) on the level of Aqua, then Aqua will no longer be unique. The only pieces of mac os x that aren't being open sourced are the pieces that make it unique.