At home I have a Mac 8500 running OS 9, and I was using it as a server so I took off almost everything. That includes Quicktime (and removal was easily done in about 30 seconds, by the way). I could still browse the web and do email and word. Some apps of course expect Quicktime to be there, but they could pretty much be configured otherwise.
Since it was a server I didn't test every app under the sun, but the OS definitely doesn't choke.
They never found a place where nobody was fighting anybody, and where there were helpful people and plentiful resources where they could relax for a few months and try to solve the problem of how to get back home.
Yeah, like I'd watch that.
"On the next episode of Sliders: the gang slides into a peaceful dimension and they hang out and enjoy it."
That leads me to a question that I have been wondering for some time now. If teleportation a la Star Trek becomes possible, are those people really being moved from one place to another, or is the original being destroyed, with an exact duplicate (with all the memories etc. of the original person) taking its place? Because it's not the same molecules, right? The duplicate would think it was the original, but the original would be dead!
soon enough we should have someone who reaches our universe.
How soon is "soon enough"? Maybe "soon" in terms of the universe is 957 bajillion gigayears. I mean, even if there are an infinite number of universes, it would happen eventually over an infinite amount of time, but that doesn't mean it has to happen before our sun dies.
Not so much that they should move to a third-party option, just that they might take a look at the third-party's mothodology and emulate it a little. Which would be quite a change for Apple.
If they thought it was really good, I'm sure Apple would have no qualms about even licensing it (look at SoundJam -> iTunes for example). However, I think that Apple wanted the application to work the way it does. I also would see benefit in an "Advanced Options" section on the software update, where I could set the time update checks are run, and possibly also auto-install options. It just seems like they could easily just add these tiny features on with very little effort (which is why I thought they didn't need to use a 3rd-party app).
The average Mac user doesn't want to be bothered with these details, though, and for that reason I think the interface should at least default to the way it is.
I'd like a command-line accessible fortune, though. All the versions I've found so far are GUI.
I think most Mac users are complaining that they want things to go in the other direction-- that is, many say "Great, I have access to all these Unix apps, but that's worthless to me because they don't have a GUI!"
But things seem to be coming together more and more all the time.
It runs with a lot less interaction (mine runs in a cron job every night - a list of installed packages is waiting for me in the moring)
I think a majority of OS X users like, or at least don't mind, the interaction. I don't want the software update to download or install packages without asking. Even if Apple did want to make this an option, why would they move to this third-party update product, instead of just adding a checkbox "Download and install updates automatically" to the existing app?
and is a lot more flexible (I can pick and choose what type of updates to install).
I'm not sure here what is different about what they have in OS X now. One can both pick, as well as choose, the updates one wishes to install. One can also disable a package that is not needed so that the updater doesn't ask about it again.
The problem is that "very annoying ads" are the type that pay good money.
I'm not talking about the bigger flash ads and things of that nature that are noticeable. I actually had to close a weather.com page before I was done reading it because the ad was honestly hurting my eyes. Yes, weather.com needs to make money, but that doesn't mean "by any means possible". And if it does, then I don't like them.
I only block off ads that have really bothered me-- mostly those are the ones that flash. You may not think that's fair, but I do.
I take excellent care of all my CDs, but how about this: I don't mind buying CDs when I like the music. But I play music in my computer; I don't have a stereo. There is no *way* that I'm going to buy a CD out of the goodness of my heart if I can't even play it! I'll just download the MP3s, thanks, and I won't have any guilt about it.
You could say "Buy a stereo!" Well, up till now buying a nice computer with good speakers covered both of those things. I'm definitely not buying a stereo just so I can play these crippled CDs!
It's not every single time. Sometimes the ad has red flashing banners (although I don't see them anymore as they are blocked), and sometimes there is a car that drives across the page, right where you're reading, and it honks.
It's very odd, but they have a lot of very annoying ads. There is much worse out there, but you'd think the weather channel's website would not be so inconsiderate. My girlfriend thinks weather.com is really "sleazy" and refuses to ever go there again.
Chalk up one for users of ancient browsers - I've never seen any annoying ads like that, and I find it hard to understand why someone would keep using a browser that had such problems.
Actually it's the website that has such problems, therefore I don't go there (except every so often to see if they've gotten worse). Easy as that, and there's no need to limit myself with an old browser.
Weather.com, which had 11.6 million visitors in February, according to Jupiter Media Metrix, is carefully evaluating Ooqa Ooqa, given the concerns about intrusiveness. "If you interrupt the consumer for no good reason, it's not effective advertising," Iaffaldano said.
Weather.com, right? Epilepsy-inducing annoying ads Weather.com? Cars driving across the webpage honking at me Weather.com?
Yeah, they have really good judgment as far as intrusive advertising goes.
Was anybody else totally not surprised to hear that Weather.com is looking to be an early adopter for this "technology"?
It's just marketing: Nothing more, nothing less. Unisys wants to sell some multiprocessor 2000/XP machines, and they co-market with Microsoft. It's not really that evil or astounding.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. It's basically meaningless in actuality. But it is something to snicker about if you don't really like MS. And I do think it could potentially have a negative effect that it got publicized (probably nothing major, but you know).
It's odd that there's a seemingly mixed attitude on Slashdot: One says that Microsoft is an evil beast bashing the world to conform to its ways, and another is a mocking when Microsoft isn't bashing people to conform to their ways. Which do you want?
Microsoft *is* bashing people to conform to their ways-- that's what the whole "wayout" site is about. They are being mocked now because they are bashing people to do things the MS way when even they aren't doing it themselves.
In any case, even if there were a mixed attitude, that should be no surprise. There are a lot of different people who post to/.
mark
Re:This reminds me of a sketch on The State...
on
CPAN Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 2
None of these are believable enough for the populace to be fooled.
I know, that was my point. The sketch was being ironic. Just because it's not true doesn't mean it's funny! The idea behind April Fool's is tricking people, not saying extremely untrue things.
mark
This reminds me of a sketch on The State...
on
CPAN Shifts Focus
·
· Score: 2
...where they teach the audience that "anything that's not true is funny and anything that is true isn't funny."
Man 1: "Ask me what I had for breakfast today."
Man 2: "What did you have for breakfast today?"
Man 1: "Waffles."
Man 2: (pauses for a moment, then laughs)
Man 1: "See? Now that's funny. I didn't have waffles today, I had eggs. Ask me again what I had for breakfast today."
Man 2: "What did you have for breakfast today?"
Man 1: "Eggs."
Man 2: (blank stare)
Man 1: "You see? I did have eggs for breakfast, hence saying I had eggs wasn't funny."
etc.
Yes, yes, these April Fool's articles aren't true, but that's not what makes fake articles funny... it's being fooled!
Oh get over it dudes. It's all in fun. Just enjoy it! Seriously. Besides, if any real news did break today, how many of you'd say "oh it's just an April Fool's Joke."
I think it's not so much that people just want the same everyday news, at least that's not the case for me. The annoying thing is, usually on April Fool's Day you try to pull a prank (or several) and trick someone. Most of these April Fool's articles are just things that aren't at all true. This isn't Make-a-Joke Day and it isn't Lying Day. So fool us!
In any case, I do think many people are being whiners about it (and hopefully this doesn't count as one).
Based on what I can see about the Unisys systems being touted here (servers with 8-32 processors, costing six-digit dollar amounts), this is not an ad targetting Linux or MacOS X-style BSD. This is aiming squarely at the proprietary UNIX systems Unisys' servers would be competing against -- Sun, HP/UX and the like.
Although Unisys competitors may be the proprietary UNIX systems, I think there could be some spillover. They are trying to spread some bad vibes about the UNIX world, which indirectly implies *BSD, OS X, and even Linux. What I mean is, people will probably clump them together in their minds, and I bet MS is hoping for that.
But maybe this ad campaign won't have much of an effect at all. We'll just have to wait and see.
I still think that the fastest way to begin switching the masses to Linux would be for the Game manufacurers to release games for Linux first.
I guess technically that could be true, but you might as well say that people would migrate to Linux if Adobe Photoshop 8 came out in Linux first. Why in the world would this happen? Is there even a point to imagining scenarios like these?
Slashdot Mirror
At home I have a Mac 8500 running OS 9, and I was using it as a server so I took off almost everything. That includes Quicktime (and removal was easily done in about 30 seconds, by the way). I could still browse the web and do email and word. Some apps of course expect Quicktime to be there, but they could pretty much be configured otherwise.
Since it was a server I didn't test every app under the sun, but the OS definitely doesn't choke.
mark
Yeah, like I'd watch that.
"On the next episode of Sliders: the gang slides into a peaceful dimension and they hang out and enjoy it."
=)
mark
That leads me to a question that I have been wondering for some time now. If teleportation a la Star Trek becomes possible, are those people really being moved from one place to another, or is the original being destroyed, with an exact duplicate (with all the memories etc. of the original person) taking its place? Because it's not the same molecules, right? The duplicate would think it was the original, but the original would be dead!
All I know is, I will never use a teleporter.
mark
How soon is "soon enough"? Maybe "soon" in terms of the universe is 957 bajillion gigayears. I mean, even if there are an infinite number of universes, it would happen eventually over an infinite amount of time, but that doesn't mean it has to happen before our sun dies.
mark
If they thought it was really good, I'm sure Apple would have no qualms about even licensing it (look at SoundJam -> iTunes for example). However, I think that Apple wanted the application to work the way it does. I also would see benefit in an "Advanced Options" section on the software update, where I could set the time update checks are run, and possibly also auto-install options. It just seems like they could easily just add these tiny features on with very little effort (which is why I thought they didn't need to use a 3rd-party app).
The average Mac user doesn't want to be bothered with these details, though, and for that reason I think the interface should at least default to the way it is.
I think most Mac users are complaining that they want things to go in the other direction-- that is, many say "Great, I have access to all these Unix apps, but that's worthless to me because they don't have a GUI!"
But things seem to be coming together more and more all the time.
mark
Yes, I have. There's not much to say, it was a completely ordinary install for me.
I haven't altered the default config for any of the items updated, so maybe that is a factor?
mark
I think a majority of OS X users like, or at least don't mind, the interaction. I don't want the software update to download or install packages without asking. Even if Apple did want to make this an option, why would they move to this third-party update product, instead of just adding a checkbox "Download and install updates automatically" to the existing app?
I'm not sure here what is different about what they have in OS X now. One can both pick, as well as choose, the updates one wishes to install. One can also disable a package that is not needed so that the updater doesn't ask about it again.
mark
I'm not talking about the bigger flash ads and things of that nature that are noticeable. I actually had to close a weather.com page before I was done reading it because the ad was honestly hurting my eyes. Yes, weather.com needs to make money, but that doesn't mean "by any means possible". And if it does, then I don't like them.
I only block off ads that have really bothered me-- mostly those are the ones that flash. You may not think that's fair, but I do.
mark
Yeah, I do that or use an app that displays the weather. It's still annoying though, you know? =)
mark
I take excellent care of all my CDs, but how about this: I don't mind buying CDs when I like the music. But I play music in my computer; I don't have a stereo. There is no *way* that I'm going to buy a CD out of the goodness of my heart if I can't even play it! I'll just download the MP3s, thanks, and I won't have any guilt about it.
You could say "Buy a stereo!" Well, up till now buying a nice computer with good speakers covered both of those things. I'm definitely not buying a stereo just so I can play these crippled CDs!
mark
It's not every single time. Sometimes the ad has red flashing banners (although I don't see them anymore as they are blocked), and sometimes there is a car that drives across the page, right where you're reading, and it honks.
mark
It's very odd, but they have a lot of very annoying ads. There is much worse out there, but you'd think the weather channel's website would not be so inconsiderate. My girlfriend thinks weather.com is really "sleazy" and refuses to ever go there again.
mark
I already lost patience with doubleclick and re-routed it to localhost, so I don't see those ads anymore.
I just never seem to be able to block off enough at weather.com.
But, yes, if it started cropping up everywhere and I couldn't stop it, I'd look to other options.
mark
Actually it's the website that has such problems, therefore I don't go there (except every so often to see if they've gotten worse). Easy as that, and there's no need to limit myself with an old browser.
mark
Weather.com, right? Epilepsy-inducing annoying ads Weather.com? Cars driving across the webpage honking at me Weather.com?
Yeah, they have really good judgment as far as intrusive advertising goes.
Was anybody else totally not surprised to hear that Weather.com is looking to be an early adopter for this "technology"?
mark
iPhoto is OS X only, the others are both.
mark
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. It's basically meaningless in actuality. But it is something to snicker about if you don't really like MS. And I do think it could potentially have a negative effect that it got publicized (probably nothing major, but you know).
mark
Microsoft *is* bashing people to conform to their ways-- that's what the whole "wayout" site is about. They are being mocked now because they are bashing people to do things the MS way when even they aren't doing it themselves.
In any case, even if there were a mixed attitude, that should be no surprise. There are a lot of different people who post to
mark
I know, that was my point. The sketch was being ironic. Just because it's not true doesn't mean it's funny! The idea behind April Fool's is tricking people, not saying extremely untrue things.
mark
...where they teach the audience that "anything that's not true is funny and anything that is true isn't funny."
Man 1: "Ask me what I had for breakfast today."
Man 2: "What did you have for breakfast today?"
Man 1: "Waffles."
Man 2: (pauses for a moment, then laughs)
Man 1: "See? Now that's funny. I didn't have waffles today, I had eggs. Ask me again what I had for breakfast today."
Man 2: "What did you have for breakfast today?"
Man 1: "Eggs."
Man 2: (blank stare)
Man 1: "You see? I did have eggs for breakfast, hence saying I had eggs wasn't funny."
etc.
Yes, yes, these April Fool's articles aren't true, but that's not what makes fake articles funny... it's being fooled!
mark
I think it's not so much that people just want the same everyday news, at least that's not the case for me. The annoying thing is, usually on April Fool's Day you try to pull a prank (or several) and trick someone. Most of these April Fool's articles are just things that aren't at all true. This isn't Make-a-Joke Day and it isn't Lying Day. So fool us!
In any case, I do think many people are being whiners about it (and hopefully this doesn't count as one).
mark
Although Unisys competitors may be the proprietary UNIX systems, I think there could be some spillover. They are trying to spread some bad vibes about the UNIX world, which indirectly implies *BSD, OS X, and even Linux. What I mean is, people will probably clump them together in their minds, and I bet MS is hoping for that.
But maybe this ad campaign won't have much of an effect at all. We'll just have to wait and see.
mark
Methinks this guy is trolling.
mark
I guess technically that could be true, but you might as well say that people would migrate to Linux if Adobe Photoshop 8 came out in Linux first. Why in the world would this happen? Is there even a point to imagining scenarios like these?
mark
I figured Taco meant the next two movies in the LOTR series would have a chance as well.
mark