This assumption was somewhat reasonable, because DEC did sell low-end 64-bit Alpha systems in the mid 90s for not that much more than a regular PC.
Plus, it's not like Intel lacked the brainpower to ship a AMD64-like ISA in the mid-to-late-90s. However at that point Itanium was supposed to be the future of commodity computing.
The problem with the HURD is that this design flaw was readily apparent 7-8 years ago and nobody fixed it.
As stated in the rolling stone article, Apple's position is "Imperfect DRM is good enough". It takes a huge leap to go from there to saying that Apple actually opposes DRM.
Plus, If Apple does not want to support DRM, why are they selling it? You need to go back and rethink your statements, or at least spare the boldface and repeated comments when you are hypothesizing.
Everyone is busy praising Apple for having the least oppressive DRM
IMO, everyone is repeating baseless propaganda. Has there been a comparison made? The RIAA was fairly adamant that they weren't giving Apple a special deal and that the playing field was level.
Who said anything about "required"? AFAIK any program that requires the context menu violates the Windows HIG. Notepad certainly doesn't.
And maybe we'll just agree to disagree, but I do see lots of people cut/copy/paste from the right-click menu. If my hand's off the keyboard, I do it sometimes myself (on both Mac and Windows).
The GPL is incompatible with patent licences, not visa-versa.
The only way to satisfy the GPL is to essentially give the patent away, which goes way beyond "non-discriminatory". ("We have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.")
There's many "OSS" licences that are designed to accommodate software patents, so I don't think you can say this discriminates against open source programmers. You could even just use the BSD licence which makes the patent the end-user's problem.
Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry.
I could see Apple not giving a rats ass about Music Piracy.
But DRM does give them a competitive advantage with player lock-in. If you're an iTMS customer, the easiest route is to be a permanent iPod user. This essentially becomes Apple's insulation against the inevitable commoditization of player devices.
However, using 1.1 and "application/xhtml+xml" is good for the newer browsers, since certainly with Firefox (and probably with others too) it uses the XML engine to render the page
Note that using the XML engine disables progressive rendering in Firefox and is quite a bit slower. "Good"?
I believe that Konq/Safari/Opera accepts the XHTML MIME type, but still treats the document as tagsoup HTML. It's arguable that this is worse behavior than IE which just refuses to process it.
It is an accepted networking principle to be conservative in that which one produces, and liberal in that which one accepts. HTML parsers should be liberal except when verifying code. HTML generators should generate strictly conforming HTML. It is suggested that where ever practical, parsers should at least flag the presence of markup errors, as this will help to avoid bad markup being produced inadvertently.
The behavior of WWW applications reading HTML documents and discovering tag or attribute names which they do not understand should be to behave as though, in the case of a tag, the whole tag had not been there but its content had, or in the case of an attribute, that the attribute had not been present.
Ultimately it comes down to citing the SGML $pecification, which is not online.
Futhermore, by the time HTML3.2 came out, defacto HTML was already loaded with Nutscrape extentions, so if the W3C wished to prohibit undefined attributes and tags, they would have said so in black and white.
Notepad is just a wrapped up version of a stock Win32 textedit control. I see many ordinary users using that exact same context menu to cut/copy/paste routinely. Maybe you only find an obviously useful feature to be "unnecessary" because you were born and bred as a single-button Mac user? I'd bet more Mac programs have the exact same menu than you realize.
You have to click "Yes run this software I know nothing about and cannot verify its source".
Both Microsoft and Firefox have made UI enhancements to make it more difficult for users to just reflexivly click "Yes" on every modal permission dialog that pops up.
I think it's perfectly fair to hold Java to the same standard, since it turns out that Java really is not safer than "native" extentions like ActiveX or XUL or Plug-ins (despite years worth of propaganda saying otherwise). "PEBKAC" is a cop-out.
As soon as Java goes open source, I plan on forking it. Job 1 will be to add first class support for COM and XPCOM objects. After that's done, I'm planning on adding Delegates for event-driven programming. Good RAD-Designer support is important too.
Of course, there might be some minor incompatibities with other JVMs, and the initial releases will be Windows-only, but since Java is such a neat and productive environment to program in, I think people will overlook these issues. Anyone interested in joining this project, please contact me.
Incorrect. Your PowerBook does not have a PageUp key, it has a PageUp function combo, which IMO defeats the purpose. The PB keyboard has been the same for many years now.
Hey AC, I don't care what Apple calls it, the PMac priced and speced like workstation, so it's a workstation.
If Apple wants to make a machine that has "lots of gigahertz" but without the premium trim, I'd welcome it, but I suspect they're making too much money selling $3000 machines to guys checking their email along with the video editors.
Actually the ratings for Star Trek programming have been falling pretty consistantly year-to-year since Next Generation went off the air. I agree about the quality of the last season of Enterprise, but all-in-all, I would say that it's clear the the genre is worn out. There's no way they could get DS9-style ratings in the short term no matter the night or programming.
A much bigger usability problem with the PowerBook keyboard is the fact that "Forward Delete", "Page Up", and "Page Down" are missing and only accessible through modifier keys.
Instead they give you a nearly useless "Enter" key which is only required by like 2 ancient programs; and a whole row of *disabled* Function keys.
It is their fault if they choose to bitch about IE's "broken box model"(sic), or spend a lot of time working around incompliance mode issues. Obviously their desire is to use correct CSS.
(IMO, IE7 should just drop the old box model, but we'll see.)
What the/. crowd seems to miss is that the mac is made for simplicity for the average joe who never used a computer.
That doesn't explain why Apple's $3000 multiprocessor workstations come with a 1 button mouse.
A better theory is that Apple has many long-time Mac-Only users, who despite their years of computer experiece, have only experience with single button mice. Apple doesn't want their best and most loyal customers feeling stupid becasue they don't know what button to push.
Re:Aren't you rather missing the point?
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
every feature FF has really came for elsewhere... But that elsewhere is, by and large, not Microsoft
There was a time when Nutscrape was busy inventing proprietary extentions, and Microsoft was the one implementing W3C standards like CSS and DOM1. (Not to mention the XML stuff.) In most cases, MS shipped their version years before the Open Source world got around to it.
Yea, Microsoft dropped the ball later on, but without their support for W3C specs, the idea of non-proprietary web standards might have just faded away. So, I think Mozilla/FireFox actually owes a lot to IE.
Re:Microsoft has finally been forced to innovate
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1
I guess my point is that having the most browser marketshare is a largely useless boast. MS has had 90%+ for years and they really don't have much control over how the web works. The only direct benefit to having high marketshare is selling advertsing on your homepage.
However, a browser can be an important wedge into other markets like devtools or servers.
The irony is that the standards nazis make an XHTML page (not even supported on IE) and accidentially knock IE into standards incomplance mode. If they just made a nice HTML4 page, almost all their CSS would work properly in IE.
Re:Microsoft has finally been forced to innovate
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1
It's really not the browser marketshare that matters, it's the platform technologies. As long as XUL and Java Applets aren't getting popular, FireFox could have 50% marketshare and it wouldn't affect Microsoft much at all.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good the implemention is. If you run a trojan as Administrator, any part of the OS could be modified, including the login window.
This is like suggesting that Linux has stupid programmers because root can replace/sbin/login
Slashdot Mirror
This assumption was somewhat reasonable, because DEC did sell low-end 64-bit Alpha systems in the mid 90s for not that much more than a regular PC.
Plus, it's not like Intel lacked the brainpower to ship a AMD64-like ISA in the mid-to-late-90s. However at that point Itanium was supposed to be the future of commodity computing.
The problem with the HURD is that this design flaw was readily apparent 7-8 years ago and nobody fixed it.
As stated in the rolling stone article, Apple's position is "Imperfect DRM is good enough". It takes a huge leap to go from there to saying that Apple actually opposes DRM.
Plus, If Apple does not want to support DRM, why are they selling it? You need to go back and rethink your statements, or at least spare the boldface and repeated comments when you are hypothesizing.
Everyone is busy praising Apple for having the least oppressive DRM
IMO, everyone is repeating baseless propaganda. Has there been a comparison made? The RIAA was fairly adamant that they weren't giving Apple a special deal and that the playing field was level.
If the EU doesn't care about patents, why are they forcing Microsoft to licence specs? Is there anything in Windows that's actually secret?
/. makes them to be, and some software patents are valid somewhere.
I suspect that the EU patent situation is not as simple as
Who said anything about "required"? AFAIK any program that requires the context menu violates the Windows HIG. Notepad certainly doesn't.
And maybe we'll just agree to disagree, but I do see lots of people cut/copy/paste from the right-click menu. If my hand's off the keyboard, I do it sometimes myself (on both Mac and Windows).
You've made a half-dozen posts claiming that Apple is opposes DRM and the RIAA's goals. I'd like to see one citation for that claim.
From here it looks like Apple and the RIAA are comfortable business partners.
Patents transend code, so I don't see how that matters.
The GPL is incompatible with patent licences, not visa-versa.
The only way to satisfy the GPL is to essentially give the patent away, which goes way beyond "non-discriminatory". ("We have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.")
There's many "OSS" licences that are designed to accommodate software patents, so I don't think you can say this discriminates against open source programmers. You could even just use the BSD licence which makes the patent the end-user's problem.
Deep down, secretly, I bet Apple could give a rat's ass about DRM. They have do to it to appease the industry.
I could see Apple not giving a rats ass about Music Piracy.
But DRM does give them a competitive advantage with player lock-in. If you're an iTMS customer, the easiest route is to be a permanent iPod user. This essentially becomes Apple's insulation against the inevitable commoditization of player devices.
However, using 1.1 and "application/xhtml+xml" is good for the newer browsers, since certainly with Firefox (and probably with others too) it uses the XML engine to render the page
Note that using the XML engine disables progressive rendering in Firefox and is quite a bit slower. "Good"?
I believe that Konq/Safari/Opera accepts the XHTML MIME type, but still treats the document as tagsoup HTML. It's arguable that this is worse behavior than IE which just refuses to process it.
Ultimately it comes down to citing the SGML $pecification, which is not online.
Futhermore, by the time HTML3.2 came out, defacto HTML was already loaded with Nutscrape extentions, so if the W3C wished to prohibit undefined attributes and tags, they would have said so in black and white.
Notepad is just a wrapped up version of a stock Win32 textedit control. I see many ordinary users using that exact same context menu to cut/copy/paste routinely. Maybe you only find an obviously useful feature to be "unnecessary" because you were born and bred as a single-button Mac user? I'd bet more Mac programs have the exact same menu than you realize.
You have to click "Yes run this software I know nothing about and cannot verify its source".
Both Microsoft and Firefox have made UI enhancements to make it more difficult for users to just reflexivly click "Yes" on every modal permission dialog that pops up.
I think it's perfectly fair to hold Java to the same standard, since it turns out that Java really is not safer than "native" extentions like ActiveX or XUL or Plug-ins (despite years worth of propaganda saying otherwise). "PEBKAC" is a cop-out.
As soon as Java goes open source, I plan on forking it. Job 1 will be to add first class support for COM and XPCOM objects. After that's done, I'm planning on adding Delegates for event-driven programming. Good RAD-Designer support is important too.
Of course, there might be some minor incompatibities with other JVMs, and the initial releases will be Windows-only, but since Java is such a neat and productive environment to program in, I think people will overlook these issues. Anyone interested in joining this project, please contact me.
Incorrect. Your PowerBook does not have a PageUp key, it has a PageUp function combo, which IMO defeats the purpose. The PB keyboard has been the same for many years now.
Hey AC, I don't care what Apple calls it, the PMac priced and speced like workstation, so it's a workstation.
If Apple wants to make a machine that has "lots of gigahertz" but without the premium trim, I'd welcome it, but I suspect they're making too much money selling $3000 machines to guys checking their email along with the video editors.
Actually the ratings for Star Trek programming have been falling pretty consistantly year-to-year since Next Generation went off the air. I agree about the quality of the last season of Enterprise, but all-in-all, I would say that it's clear the the genre is worn out. There's no way they could get DS9-style ratings in the short term no matter the night or programming.
Microsoft has already announced dropping support for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 applications in Windows 64;
Was not Microsoft's doing. AMD intentionally broke 16-bit application support when they designed the 64-bit ISA.
A much bigger usability problem with the PowerBook keyboard is the fact that "Forward Delete", "Page Up", and "Page Down" are missing and only accessible through modifier keys.
Instead they give you a nearly useless "Enter" key which is only required by like 2 ancient programs; and a whole row of *disabled* Function keys.
It is their fault if they choose to bitch about IE's "broken box model"(sic), or spend a lot of time working around incompliance mode issues. Obviously their desire is to use correct CSS.
(IMO, IE7 should just drop the old box model, but we'll see.)
What the /. crowd seems to miss is that the mac is made for simplicity for the average joe who never used a computer.
That doesn't explain why Apple's $3000 multiprocessor workstations come with a 1 button mouse.
A better theory is that Apple has many long-time Mac-Only users, who despite their years of computer experiece, have only experience with single button mice. Apple doesn't want their best and most loyal customers feeling stupid becasue they don't know what button to push.
every feature FF has really came for elsewhere... But that elsewhere is, by and large, not Microsoft
There was a time when Nutscrape was busy inventing proprietary extentions, and Microsoft was the one implementing W3C standards like CSS and DOM1. (Not to mention the XML stuff.) In most cases, MS shipped their version years before the Open Source world got around to it.
Yea, Microsoft dropped the ball later on, but without their support for W3C specs, the idea of non-proprietary web standards might have just faded away. So, I think Mozilla/FireFox actually owes a lot to IE.
I guess my point is that having the most browser marketshare is a largely useless boast. MS has had 90%+ for years and they really don't have much control over how the web works. The only direct benefit to having high marketshare is selling advertsing on your homepage.
However, a browser can be an important wedge into other markets like devtools or servers.
> omitting any xml prologues
The irony is that the standards nazis make an XHTML page (not even supported on IE) and accidentially knock IE into standards incomplance mode. If they just made a nice HTML4 page, almost all their CSS would work properly in IE.
It's really not the browser marketshare that matters, it's the platform technologies. As long as XUL and Java Applets aren't getting popular, FireFox could have 50% marketshare and it wouldn't affect Microsoft much at all.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good the implemention is. If you run a trojan as Administrator, any part of the OS could be modified, including the login window.
/sbin/login
This is like suggesting that Linux has stupid programmers because root can replace