I have a miror of the two articles; if you want the link, send a brief e-mail to slashdot@phroggy.com stating that you are not in any way affiliated with Apple.
Okay, how many times are you gonna post this same misinformation to Slashdot? Do you have any idea what a laughing stock MacOSRumors.com is in the (already lame due to an almost total lack of real info) Apple rumors world?
It's a more reliable rumor than the one about Disney buying out Apple and Pixar.
Besides, I have seen photos from a few different sources that clearly show Macs at LucasFilm and ILM. And Maya is being ported to Mac OS X.
They have Changed it from numbers (bad for humans) to 4 recognizable brands (good for humans).
That was a serious problem (which is better, a 5500 or a 6100?), but now they have a similar problem at the opposite extreme: no model numbers at all. Those who know the internal codenames (Yosemite, Yikes, Sawtooth, Wallstreet, Lombard, Pismo) or iMac revisions (Rev A, Rev B, Rev C, Rev D) can tell them apart, but Apple isn't very helpful about this.
Know what Apple says is the easiest way to tell the difference between a Yikes G4 (PCI graphics) and a Sawtooth G4 (AGP graphics), entirely different models with different motherboards and different features, other than opening up the case and looking inside? Go here.
You actually think the people working on the movies say, Hey, let's stick our favorite OS into the movie? Hell no, Apple pays to have their stuff in movies. Practically EVERYTHING you see in a movie that is branded was paid for by the company. That's how studios make back some money on the movie set... they have a person whose only job is to sell branding in the movie. When forrest gump decided to go running, do you think the director said, "Props! Get me some shoes!!"? No way... the branding person went out and called Nike, said we're doing a scene featuring shoes, how much will you pay?
Um, no, they don't say "let's put our favorite OS in a movie," they say "let's put a computer in a movie," and it happens to be a Mac because the majority of people working on the movie are Mac users and that's what they have handy. Yes, sometimes Apple pays them, but they usually don't, although they do often provide free computers.
Actually, there was an article written back when Toy Story was first created which described the set up. While textures and backgrounds and such were done on Mac's The Final rendering process is (well... was when the article was written) done by 30+ clustered Sparcs. (It took about 36 hours to render each frame in the original Toy Story!)
Ahh, ok, my bad. Sun, not SGI.
What's really interesting are the rumors that SGI and LucasFilm have a special deal where LucasFilm gets free SGI hardware, and in exchange they never mention that they use Macintoshes.
Of course you can't neglect Pixar's role in the whole thing. Ultimately, it'll be Apple hardware rendering Pixar's movies to be distributed by Disney. Pun or not, I think that's *DAMN* funny. Not a BAD idea, but an amusing one.
Umm, they already do this. I think Pixar also uses SGIs for rendering, but they use Macs for everything else.
And since nobody's done it yet, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Steve Jobs?
Nope, I don't want this Mickey-Mouse company messing up such a Good Thing.
Personally, I think Steve Jobs is messing Apple up badly enough as it is. Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot of good, but when I think of some of the awesome possibilities he's been closing down, and Apple's recent complete disregard for the customer.....
Now we can see apples in more movies. Why are all computers in movies apples?
Remember how everybody says the Macintosh has a niche market, and other than that they've got really low market share? Well, guess what that niche market is? That's right - graphics, music, sound, video, film, etc. etc. The people who make movies use Macs.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Apple often gives computers to movie studios for use in movies. And sometimes they do cobranded marketing, like for Mission: Impossible.
Remember when Forrest Gump bought stock in a fruit company? Apple didn't call the movie studio and ask them to use their logo. The movie studio called Apple and asked for permission.
Something you might find interesting: Apple Masters.
--
Re:This is bound to fail...
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Fundamentally, I should NOT be typing in "www.microsoft.com" in IE if I want to look for Windows 98 crap. I should type in "Microsoft Windows 98". There should be no end-user mapping between content and DNS name. Content should be divorced from DNS completely, in the manner that DNS is divorced from IPs. Meta-searching and content discovery/cataloging need to be avanced to the point where honestly, the end-user should NEVER KNOW ABOUT URLs. Does then end-user know about IP addresses nowdays? No. Neither should they need to know about DNS names.
Wrong! There must be a simple, concise way of referring to specific sites. I don't want to have to type "Microsoft Windows 98" into a search engine and see what comes up. I might want to go to Microsoft's official Win98 page, or I might want to go to a third-party site with information about Win98, or I might want to go to a parody site that makes fun of Win98, or whatever. As someone else has pointed out, the user MUST be able to tell if they're on the official Microsoft site or not, and they MUST be able to indicate that they do (or do not) want to go to the official Microsoft site when they type in the address.
If I type in Apple, do I really want Apple Computer, Apple Records, the Washington Apple Commission, or Fiona Apple? If I can remember that the Washington Apple Commission's home page is http://www.bestapples.com/, then there will be no confusion in the future. Finding that the first time is what search engines are for.
So, in conclusion, it sucks that your IMac doesn't work this way for you and yes, it's due to some crappy design flaws. However, the IMac is made for your average faux-bohemian in a loft who cares more about coffee shops than computers or your average suburban mom/dad who feel the same way. If you want performance, flexibility, and, heck, a better computer, get a G4 (if you want to stay with Mac, that is). Just my opinion.)
I think way too many people have this attitude. It's simply not acceptible. Consumer or not, the stuff should work. If it's not targeted to professionals, great - don't put in the kinds of features that consumers don't need. Just because it's consumer-oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have to work as well as it claims to.
Contrariwise, when that "One True Way" doesn't work for you as a user, you have no recourse on a Mac. I don't care how much HCI design Apple puts into the OS; if I as a user fall outside their statistical sample then I'm up a creek without a paddle. In a certain sense, a more complex but configurable interface is in the interests of the mediuma-to-advanced user if it lets them become more productive.
Exactly the opposite, actually. If all programs work the same way and use the same system-level APIs to do things, then, if that doesn't work for you as a user, you can find a hack that traps those standard system-level APIs and replaces them with something a little more to your liking. If each application does things their own way, then you, as a user, are up a creek if you want to make any system-wide changes.
A great example of this: say I'm working in a word processor and I want to import a graphic file to be included in my document. I find an option for "Insert Picture From File" or something similar, and it presents me with a listing of files. Now, I can see the folder the file is in in the background off to the side, but in order to get to it in the file I want in the dialog box, I'd have to navigate through an obnoxious directory hierarchy on a mounted network server (because that happens to be where I put the file). So I get a hack called "Click, there it is!" and now, while the dialog box is in front of me, just click the window in the background, and it does exactly what I want. And guess what? Because everything is standard, it works for all Open File dialog boxes, in all applications on the system!
Would adding '127.0.0.1 www.quova.com' to the host file stop them from getting the responce they are looking for?
No. That will make DNS looups for that hostname return 127.0.0.1, but your system will identify them by IP address rather than hostname, and they probably wouldn't be scanning from the Web server anyway. Remember, the hosts file is not a firewall; merely a way to locally override your DNS server.
...locate the 3 1/2" diskette drive, insert the boot disk...
Geez, you still use floppies?!? You're one of those people who said the iMac would fail, aren't you? Come on, unless it's a 486 or something, boot from CD!
Nothing will work on ANY system. Period. Computer hardware is so diverse that there can be millions of combonations. To find out what works and what doesn't work the consumer must go out on the net and do some research. If some people had tough times on one sound card and another sound card worked great then buy the good one.
Umm, you may be right, but that sure doesn't stop Microsoft from having a "Works with Win98" program. Vendors pay Microsoft piles of money, Microsoft tests the product, and if Microsoft thinks it's good enough, the vendor gets to put the sticker on it.
If a group were formed to do the same for Linux (charging far less than Micosoft does), I think a handful of vendors would jump on it, and once it gained acceptance, more would follow.
Phroggy, if you posit the existence of God as the *simplest* explanation for the origin of the universe, you next have to come up with a theory for the origin of God.
No I don't, any more than you have to come up with a theory to explain what came before the Big Bang. Sure, the universe started with an explosion - but exactly what exploded? Where did that come from? Was there another universe like ours, a few hundred billion years old, that collapsed in on itself, then exploded? If so, is this a recurring cycle? How long has this been going on? Where did it all start? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed; how did it get here in the first place?
The previous post by jmegq that says programs necessary for OS installation might be a gray area makes sense, though it seems like it would be OK to me. But I can understand why Apple would want to avoid gray areas.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
You don't have to release the OS under the GPL just because you bundled a GPL utility with the OS, unless the OS and the GPL'd app are released together in the same package.
Sorry that I was unclear. I meant they could write their own package manager using the concepts and features of previous systems - not the code of the previous systems.
Sorry that I was unclear; you're correct, but Apple would have to take steps to ensure that they weren't inadvertently including code from dpkg when they wrote their own package manager, by giving a group of programmers who'd never seen the source to dpkg (and who could sign an affidavit to that effect) a specification of what it's supposed to do and having them write their own version. This would probably be a rather annoying undertaking, I would imagine.
Without replying directly to the article... Does anybody know if Mac OS X definetly supports PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules)? Or do the user and group management of Mac OS X support LDAP? In the whole world I havent found any hint on this. For me (and thousands more, I assume) this is very important, because it would be the most convenient way to integrate Macs into a heterogenic environment of Linux and Mac OS X servers. What a dream...
Mac OS X uses a NetInfo database, and all username/password queries are passed to a NetInfo daemon. This daemon can be configured, I believe, to query PAM or LDAP instead. NetInfo has been ported to Linux as well, so that might help, since NetInfo actually looks to be pretty cool.
And for the record, you never *had* to drag the floppy into the trash. There is a menu item "Eject Disk."
For the record, prior to Mac OS 8, the "Eject Disk" command (Cmd-E) would eject a disk without unmounting it (leaving a grayed-out icon on the desktop and constantly asking for the disk back due to some annoying bugs they never bothered fixing). The "Put Away" command in the File menu (Cmd-Y) unmounts and ejects disks, and does the same thing as dragging a disk to the Trash. Note that when you put away a file, it moves it back to wherever it came from, sort of. Useful for pulling things out of the Trash if you've accidentally thrown them away, but not much else.
The "Put Away" command was introduced with System 7. Prior to that, you had to drag the disk to the Trash, and since many people didn't know about the Put Away command before Mac OS 8, they had to do it then too.
So what's Apple's problem with having a GPL'ed package management system? I know many companies have an aversion to the GPL, but how does having a free and open package management system hurt them? The GPL wouldn't infect the packages. This isn't a flame - I really don't see where what the catch is from Apple's point of view.
It's not an aversion to the GPL; Apple would love to use tons of GPL'd apps. However, the GPL mandates that if you include GPL'd code as part of an operating system, the entire operating system must be released under the GPL. Apple's not willing to do that, for obvious reasons.
And if they don't like the GPL, can't they just implement package management themselves, copying their favorite parts from deb, rpm, Sun's pkg, *BSD's ports, etc. Sure, setting up their own packaging system would be a lot of work, but I think it would be pretty small compared to some of the other stuff they're putting into OSX.
If they use ANY code from any GPL'd program, they have to release the whole thing under the GPL.
Y'know, that would be nice. Mac's carved out a fairly strong niche as the multimedia platform of choice for graphic/video developers, and with the recent rush of super special effects and full-length 3d animated films, a bunch of the systems crunching away wouldn't be a bad idea.
According to rumor, LucasFilm has a special deal with SGI: SGI gives them lots of really cool free hardware, and in return, LucasFilm never mentions that they run Macs. Apparently LucasFilm is using prototype quad-processor G4 systems running Mac OS X and Maya for many of the special effects in Episode II, and some of the rendering in Episode I was done on G3s.
The OS is the Mach Microkernel and BSD. The User Interface is Aqua, so you have a UNIX system with a Mac-like GUI on top.
...that runs Mac OS applications, looks and feels like a Mac, and hides the BSD layer from the user completely, unless you go out of your way to get to it.
I was reading somewheres at Apple that you can open a text editor and actually access the command line. now hwo knows what shell it's useing.
Yes, Terminal.app (optional, not installed by default) gives you full CLI access, and it runs tcsh by default, although of course you're free to install bash, zsh, or whatever else makes ou happy.
Slashdot Mirror
--
It's a more reliable rumor than the one about Disney buying out Apple and Pixar.
Besides, I have seen photos from a few different sources that clearly show Macs at LucasFilm and ILM. And Maya is being ported to Mac OS X.
--
That was a serious problem (which is better, a 5500 or a 6100?), but now they have a similar problem at the opposite extreme: no model numbers at all. Those who know the internal codenames (Yosemite, Yikes, Sawtooth, Wallstreet, Lombard, Pismo) or iMac revisions (Rev A, Rev B, Rev C, Rev D) can tell them apart, but Apple isn't very helpful about this.
Know what Apple says is the easiest way to tell the difference between a Yikes G4 (PCI graphics) and a Sawtooth G4 (AGP graphics), entirely different models with different motherboards and different features, other than opening up the case and looking inside? Go here.
--
Um, no, they don't say "let's put our favorite OS in a movie," they say "let's put a computer in a movie," and it happens to be a Mac because the majority of people working on the movie are Mac users and that's what they have handy. Yes, sometimes Apple pays them, but they usually don't, although they do often provide free computers.
--
Ahh, ok, my bad. Sun, not SGI.
What's really interesting are the rumors that SGI and LucasFilm have a special deal where LucasFilm gets free SGI hardware, and in exchange they never mention that they use Macintoshes.
--
No, I think Apple was still going out of business when this rumor started.
--
Umm, they already do this. I think Pixar also uses SGIs for rendering, but they use Macs for everything else.
And since nobody's done it yet, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Steve Jobs?
That's just sick and wrong.
--
Personally, I think Steve Jobs is messing Apple up badly enough as it is. Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot of good, but when I think of some of the awesome possibilities he's been closing down, and Apple's recent complete disregard for the customer.....
--
Remember how everybody says the Macintosh has a niche market, and other than that they've got really low market share? Well, guess what that niche market is? That's right - graphics, music, sound, video, film, etc. etc. The people who make movies use Macs.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Apple often gives computers to movie studios for use in movies. And sometimes they do cobranded marketing, like for Mission: Impossible.
Remember when Forrest Gump bought stock in a fruit company? Apple didn't call the movie studio and ask them to use their logo. The movie studio called Apple and asked for permission.
Something you might find interesting: Apple Masters.
--
Wrong! There must be a simple, concise way of referring to specific sites. I don't want to have to type "Microsoft Windows 98" into a search engine and see what comes up. I might want to go to Microsoft's official Win98 page, or I might want to go to a third-party site with information about Win98, or I might want to go to a parody site that makes fun of Win98, or whatever. As someone else has pointed out, the user MUST be able to tell if they're on the official Microsoft site or not, and they MUST be able to indicate that they do (or do not) want to go to the official Microsoft site when they type in the address.
If I type in Apple, do I really want Apple Computer, Apple Records, the Washington Apple Commission, or Fiona Apple? If I can remember that the Washington Apple Commission's home page is http://www.bestapples.com/, then there will be no confusion in the future. Finding that the first time is what search engines are for.
--
--
I think way too many people have this attitude. It's simply not acceptible. Consumer or not, the stuff should work. If it's not targeted to professionals, great - don't put in the kinds of features that consumers don't need. Just because it's consumer-oriented doesn't mean it doesn't have to work as well as it claims to.
--
Exactly the opposite, actually. If all programs work the same way and use the same system-level APIs to do things, then, if that doesn't work for you as a user, you can find a hack that traps those standard system-level APIs and replaces them with something a little more to your liking. If each application does things their own way, then you, as a user, are up a creek if you want to make any system-wide changes.
A great example of this: say I'm working in a word processor and I want to import a graphic file to be included in my document. I find an option for "Insert Picture From File" or something similar, and it presents me with a listing of files. Now, I can see the folder the file is in in the background off to the side, but in order to get to it in the file I want in the dialog box, I'd have to navigate through an obnoxious directory hierarchy on a mounted network server (because that happens to be where I put the file). So I get a hack called "Click, there it is!" and now, while the dialog box is in front of me, just click the window in the background, and it does exactly what I want. And guess what? Because everything is standard, it works for all Open File dialog boxes, in all applications on the system!
Ugh, pressed for time, sorry this is rushed.
--
No. That will make DNS looups for that hostname return 127.0.0.1, but your system will identify them by IP address rather than hostname, and they probably wouldn't be scanning from the Web server anyway. Remember, the hosts file is not a firewall; merely a way to locally override your DNS server.
--
Geez, you still use floppies?!? You're one of those people who said the iMac would fail, aren't you? Come on, unless it's a 486 or something, boot from CD!
--
Umm, you may be right, but that sure doesn't stop Microsoft from having a "Works with Win98" program. Vendors pay Microsoft piles of money, Microsoft tests the product, and if Microsoft thinks it's good enough, the vendor gets to put the sticker on it.
If a group were formed to do the same for Linux (charging far less than Micosoft does), I think a handful of vendors would jump on it, and once it gained acceptance, more would follow.
--
No I don't, any more than you have to come up with a theory to explain what came before the Big Bang. Sure, the universe started with an explosion - but exactly what exploded? Where did that come from? Was there another universe like ours, a few hundred billion years old, that collapsed in on itself, then exploded? If so, is this a recurring cycle? How long has this been going on? Where did it all start? Matter can be neither created nor destroyed; how did it get here in the first place?
--
From the GPL:
You don't have to release the OS under the GPL just because you bundled a GPL utility with the OS, unless the OS and the GPL'd app are released together in the same package.
Sorry that I was unclear. I meant they could write their own package manager using the concepts and features of previous systems - not the code of the previous systems.
Sorry that I was unclear; you're correct, but Apple would have to take steps to ensure that they weren't inadvertently including code from dpkg when they wrote their own package manager, by giving a group of programmers who'd never seen the source to dpkg (and who could sign an affidavit to that effect) a specification of what it's supposed to do and having them write their own version. This would probably be a rather annoying undertaking, I would imagine.
--
Mac OS X uses a NetInfo database, and all username/password queries are passed to a NetInfo daemon. This daemon can be configured, I believe, to query PAM or LDAP instead. NetInfo has been ported to Linux as well, so that might help, since NetInfo actually looks to be pretty cool.
--
For the record, prior to Mac OS 8, the "Eject Disk" command (Cmd-E) would eject a disk without unmounting it (leaving a grayed-out icon on the desktop and constantly asking for the disk back due to some annoying bugs they never bothered fixing). The "Put Away" command in the File menu (Cmd-Y) unmounts and ejects disks, and does the same thing as dragging a disk to the Trash. Note that when you put away a file, it moves it back to wherever it came from, sort of. Useful for pulling things out of the Trash if you've accidentally thrown them away, but not much else.
The "Put Away" command was introduced with System 7. Prior to that, you had to drag the disk to the Trash, and since many people didn't know about the Put Away command before Mac OS 8, they had to do it then too.
--
It's not an aversion to the GPL; Apple would love to use tons of GPL'd apps. However, the GPL mandates that if you include GPL'd code as part of an operating system, the entire operating system must be released under the GPL. Apple's not willing to do that, for obvious reasons.
And if they don't like the GPL, can't they just implement package management themselves, copying their favorite parts from deb, rpm, Sun's pkg, *BSD's ports, etc. Sure, setting up their own packaging system would be a lot of work, but I think it would be pretty small compared to some of the other stuff they're putting into OSX.
If they use ANY code from any GPL'd program, they have to release the whole thing under the GPL.
--
Actually this might interest you.
--
According to rumor, LucasFilm has a special deal with SGI: SGI gives them lots of really cool free hardware, and in return, LucasFilm never mentions that they run Macs. Apparently LucasFilm is using prototype quad-processor G4 systems running Mac OS X and Maya for many of the special effects in Episode II, and some of the rendering in Episode I was done on G3s.
--
Perhaps it wasn't a typo, but rather an insightful self-reflection?
--
...that runs Mac OS applications, looks and feels like a Mac, and hides the BSD layer from the user completely, unless you go out of your way to get to it.
I was reading somewheres at Apple that you can open a text editor and actually access the command line. now hwo knows what shell it's useing.
Yes, Terminal.app (optional, not installed by default) gives you full CLI access, and it runs tcsh by default, although of course you're free to install bash, zsh, or whatever else makes ou happy.
--