Re:Perhaps OSS Zealots shouldn't piss off Blizzard
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2
Fine. I'm sure you won't mind if I borrow your significant other and your stereo and any code you've written. I won't use for anything illegal--I promise.
People who think that stealing others work gets on my nerves, especially when they justify stealing stuff i just happened to make.
The WORLD is not open source. You can't take everything for yourself. Grow up.
Perhaps OSS Zealots shouldn't piss off Blizzard
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2, Troll
Let me preface that not all Linux or OSS users are total nitwits. I'm talking here of the OSS people who evangelize and generally annoy us along with similar zealots in the Macintosh and Windows camps when it comes to boycotts and pissy attitudes to the businesses that dare cater to "lesser" operating systems (in terms of market share).
If one thing never seems to get through a zealot's head, it's this: Never piss off the people you protest if you want something from them.
Case in point: Mac OS X is essentially BSD, and these users will be able to play the new game at the same time as Windows users. Further: Blizzard knows code, and could easily adapt the Mac OS X for a Linux port. They have proven this with the Diablo II game, of which a Mac version was in stores less than 4 weeks after the Windows version, and even created a version of Diablo II that works natively in Mac OS X. Other companies that love to port, such as Aspyr, could possibly be convinced to license other company's code for porting to Linux as well.
However, certain factions, namely the Linux zealots eager to boycott and bitch and try to steal intellectual property and server code and processes they DON'T OWN are rocking the damn boat for the majority of Linux/non-Windows/non-Mac people who wouldn't mind a Blizzard game.
Don't get me wrong. Protesting is OK. Comments are OK. Being a whiny bastard only annoys those who can help you--namely the people who write the software. I've personally watched the news where some whiny Mac idiot almost singlehandedly fucked us all in the Mac world when trying to gain support or software by writing a libelous, fact-lacking, and generally pin-headed letter that only Pat Robertson would appreciate.
Keep your principles and write nice letters of request for Blizzard. Battle.net is still free for those who buy the software. Battle.net would get stronger for Linux users if the shills would shut the fuck up so that the calm, pleasant requests for support can be heard.
Blizzard CAN write a Linux version of all their products. If you don't want it, OK. But don't do an Al-Queda for the Linux gaming industry by protesting and threatening and screwing around with other's toys (like the bnetd guys are) so much that your actions sabotage a chance at a positive action.
Let's not go into name calling. I'm too old for that shit, and so, it appears, are you, if you laughed at the resurrected "SuperDrive" name.
Your points are all valid, so we'll agree to disagree. And "fanboy" I ain't. I'm a computer person, not "Apple person." Like you, I have my choices, but I'm obligated to make good choices for my work, and many of them aren't Apple related. It's hard to determine from your comments which platform you would prefer if cost were not a factor.
Steve runs the company. This can (and has) changed, but Apple was nearly killed from that change. The "magic", if I dare to use such a word, comes from Steve Jobs and his "screw you, I like it THIS way" sort of attitude. It's not for everybody. Today, it tends to move things forward where everyone else in the industry appears moribund. I don't think I'd like the guy personally if I met him--but I appreciate what he does for his company, and the products he creates keep me employed and a few less things to worry about than whether my SMART drive settings were on or if I put that last jumper on wrong.
I don't buy the hype. I only have optimism because working dominantly with Apple, with all its highs and lows, requires it. But I recommend to users what they need, not what I like. Need to do video? An iMac or Power Mac. Need to write a letter and surf? A PC. Tight budget? PC. Hate fighting with a computer? Mac. It's not a complex formula, and I would be jobless if I were strictly an Apple proponent.
Not everyone wants to get their hands dirty. If that toots your boat, great. Innovation is subjective firsthand. Few people debate that Apple was innovative when it introduced the Macintosh initially. I guess we can really judge that much, much later.
Sounds like the traditional PC homebrew style is best for you. It's a fine choice. It's just not something that everyone can do, and I don't presume that they can build their own box. Hence my rant. We are in agreement on one thing: Woz is a genius and was the quintessential homebrewer.
You're right--your message is a troll. See the hairy little bastard under the bridge? That's your comment.
Historically, Apple cared not to add password protection to their first Macs for the same reason that you don't expect someone to ask for your papers just to use your toaster. Apple's original intent was to design the Macintosh for use as an appliance--something that didn't require a science degree to use. Easy. Efficient. Simple. NOTHING on a Macintosh was meant to be complex. That is why we STILL have only one button on our boxed mouse. This is a fundamental difference in how Apple and other companies, particularly Microsoft, design their products. If you, the user, want complexity, you're free to do so, but Apple won't screw their product by adding something that many do not need or want, and sometimes compromises the whole box. Perhaps you should think about WHY PCs had to have password protection to begin with, so long before Apple supported it on their hardware? Compensating for something, perhaps?
Recent changes to Apple hardware such as Open Firmware are extensions to this simplicity. In the past, Macintosh systems had fixed ROMs where the system bootstrapping code and portions of the system software was stored. This was expensive (these were custom chips) and inefficient over time (OS upgrades would have to hack over the hard code in the chips, if it could). Old systems could not be modified to handle more advanced OS tasks after a point.
Rather than go towards the use of the very inefficient and extremely complex BIOS format of the PC world, Apple chose OF, something that STILL didn't require users to go nuts when making hardware changes, and added similar BIOS functionality, including flashing. As an "old Mac user", you should know this, so that's why I doubt your sincerity, much less your knowledge base.
Apple is simply responding to the current world's need for greater security, particularly with the increased potential for cracking Mac OS X (it's basically BSD, after all). Apple may want a Macintosh to be free and open, but its just not that kind of world. Sure, password protection isn't not necessarily innovative. But it's a positive step in an otherwise dull market where innovation is still an exception, not a rule.
What you get out of your PC creations is your business. I make my PCs, too. They make great game boxes, but I doubt I'll make anything with it. With your kind of logic, Apple will never impress you. When you really need something that Apple's products solve for you, please buy it and enjoy it. Otherwise, I'm sure you can post to applesucks.com and not waste our bandwidth.
Apple has provided quite a lot to the computer industry. I don't remember Microsoft or Tovalds discussing how digital video would be a neat thing to do. I don't remember Bill Gates discussing the merits of FireWire or USB before 1998. I've never found a computer as easy to open and install new components as a Power Mac tower (and I've used a lot of computers since 1977). I would love for other companies to have a quarter of vision like Apple (Sun is one of the few exceptions: Java was a marvelous concept), but it's not that world. Microsoft earns its "borg" nickname for a reason. And they control the PC hardware design by controlling the OS, which is a shame: PC hardware should've been free of interrupts and other stupid things that Macs and other advanced hardware like SGIs have never dealt with.
Which is worse: Apple offering password protection at a time where it needed it and the OS fully supported it, or PC users being stuck with a bootstrapping process bound in an archaic resource management system that's so old that it makes my wristwatch seem advanced?
You can still boot off of other media by holding down the Option key. From there, you'll be asked for the OF password, and then you can choose the disk you want to use.
For the record, I'm an Apple Service Technician, so I'm not quite talking out of the side of my face.
Open Firmware protection has been around since the Blue & White G3 (maybe the original G3) but wasn't really endorsed by Apple until now. I think they really wanted to make a formal way to configure it. Before this, users had to boot into OF and enter some arcane commands.
Basically, all Macs made since late 1999 work with this, but original and Blue & White G3s as well as early iMacs (made in 1998 and 1999) don't qualify. That doesn't mean you can't attempt to use the OF password features available on these systems, just that you may not be able to use Apple's utility to configure it since the firmware versions don't match.
As someone already said, all bets are off when a hacker has physical access to the computer. But, combined with physical deterrents such as locks and proper security (rlogin off, password on screen saver, proper admin and user accounts, etc.), this really helps teachers and other sysadmins who need to keep kiddies or college kids from overriding the system's security and installing or copying stuff.
Apple hardware has really needed this for a long time, and I couldn't endorse it until Apple did since it's a CYA thing.
WebDAV is used practically by many Mac OS users in the form of the iDisk service on Apple's iTools network services. Being an open standard, there must be some commonality that makes it practical to set up WebDAV services on any or all boxes for basic file sharing, or even a common location. iDisk itself isn't the solution, of course, but it shows the practicality of a WebDAV solution.
The XServe (not "XServer") comes with an operating system, like any other Mac. In this case, it's Mac OS X Server.
This OS provides an unlimited number of clients to access the operating system for file sharing and the like. In comparison, Microsoft and a few other server OS makers not only charge for the purchase of the OS, but add a per-user charge for each user account that will access the operating system.
Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X, and your comment does not apply to this situation.
Mac OS X uses Mach, but its used differently from what GNU/Mach may use things.
IANAP, but some lackey on Linux Journal dared to write an article declaring the microkernel a dead technology in this article.
A ton of people slammed his lack of research and knowledge of microkernels, Mach, Mac OS X, or Darwin. The article is less than useful, but the responses from the irate readers explaining how Apple implements Mach (and its pretty damn clever--they take the Mach and BSD fusion to a monolithic state).
I've really enjoyed how the Linux/UNIX community has poured their time into making things work in Mac OS X. While OS X users have a really good interface already (and aren't likely to switch for good), adding KDE makes working around in X (as in XFree86, that is) that much easier. Further, it adds an additional arsenal of desktop tools that an OS user can take advantage of in the occasional event that an OS X native app doesn't do what you would expect.
I'll wait for KDE/OSX to get rid of a couple of more bugs, and then I'll try my XDarwin out on the fruit-juicy goodness of KDE.
Hopefully, this'll get the GNOME guys a little jealous and they'll wrap up their port.
The most likely reason why Vader never used Sith lightning is that it would short his life-support hardware. Or, more importantly, he never needed to. I do agree that merely being told what to expect is different from using the technique in the real world.
Luke did indeed return to Dagobah to complete his training to make him more prepared for the events of ROTJ. We can see a remarkable change in Luke's attitude and skill in ROTJ. That takes time. Luke returns to Yoda after the Solo rescue to learn more--probably because Yoda never said anything like "OK, done you are."
As we know, Obi-Wan barely taught Luke anything. Luke's most effective training was done by Yoda. I believe about 2-4 years progress between the events of ESB and ROTJ, but I'm not sure. That's still a lot of time for Yoda to teach some special tricks--but, I agree, combating Sith lightning would be up there in the "PhD" Jedi arts, and Luke certainly didn't have Yoda throwing bolts out to practice. Crash-course training and all.
A more "logical" reason why Vader is never seen using Sith lightning is more clear at the end of ROFJ. (Sure, I accept the "Lucas didn't invent it yet" thing, too, but things have to fit.)
Remember that Vader/Anakin is the THE most powerful force-sensitive--he was born of the Force. Any Sith lightning that he could wield would be quite powerful. But--using lightning may (and did) short out the life-sustaining hardware that made up Vader's suit. Doesn't mean that we might not see him throw off a few bolts before his transformation from Anakin to Vader is complete.
Either you haven't seen AOTC yet, or slept through the end.
Count Dooku threw Sith lightning at Anakin when he stupidly charged Dooku initially. When Dooku tried the same initial trick at Kenobi, he defended against it by "pulling" the lightning attack into his lightsaber. Dooku then proceeded to kick Kenobi's ass in a duel.
Yoda was so knowledgeable in Sith lightning attacks that he was able to first deflect Dooku's first attack at him, but then absorb it the second time.
So both knew enough on Sith lightning defenses to give Luke a pointer or two...maybe they didn't because they had knowledge that Luke's assault by the Emperor would be the thing to get Anakin to shake off his affection with the Dark Side. Or, it was just a good cinematic tool.
A saga does not attempt--and cannot--give a 12 hour story in a 2 hour format. Hell, most screenplays don't fit well into 2 hours from its novel origins.
Americans are spoiled by how Hollywood has made movies: They want immediate and final gratification. On that, Spider-Man wins. It's a good story in its own right. If you realize that life is a series of adventures, and not all of them spectacularly interesting, then the Star Wars saga's got most other movies beat hands down. Not that we should need Cliffs Notes for it, but there are many facets to The Flanneled One's little story, and it is enjoyable enough to those who are interested.
Very, very few people will talk about the Spider-Man movies in 25 years, I assure you. Not that Spider-Man the character isn't worth it--far from it. But Star Wars was meant to be talked about and chewed upon.
Consider these little morsels before you get your panties in a bunch about the fun that still is found in Star Wars (bad acting and dialogue notwithstanding):
* How can Palpatine, if he is actually (and presumed by many) to be Darth Sidious, sit nose to nose with Yoda and other Jedi and not be detected? SW history has it that the Dark Side of the Force throws off a bad metaphysical stink.
* A follow up to the first point: Are Palpatine and Sidious actually two different people? Clones, anyone? (Lots of dialogue on Kenobi's visit to the clone makers suggest that they can do anything to a clone, including changing its force sensitivity).
* Since we see that Padme's got a thing for scoundrels, does this later explain daughter Leia's taste in men?
* Why, for cryin' out loud, didn't Kenobi and Yoda teach Luke the various Sith lightning counterattacks they used in their fights? He could've used them...
The list goes on. I could make a small list for Spider-Man, but all it would revolve around would be how cold and wet we can make Kirsten Dunst's clothing in the next sequel.
All kidding aside, while Spider-Man the Movie has depth, it doesn't have a rich one. While Star Wars is just a popcorn movie, it's pretty good use-real-butter-dammit popcorn.
Katz' criticisms don't equate since he is comparing one movie to a series of movies.
[out of keyboard] Form feet and legs! [out of display] Form arms and body! [out of Windows XP] And I'll form the head!
[Robot's body shortly turns blue with white lettering crawling around it like an obscene electronic text ticker, and falls on its side ala the Dirty Old Man from Laugh-In.]
I'm not a developer, but this appears to have answered a great many questions for those developers teetering on the edge of Mac OS X development. My primary questions were answered pretty well from this document.
The nice thing about this document is how it tacitly implies that writing an OS X app can be done in such a way that it can be deployed just about anywhere with practically any imaging model and with many new or common IDEs. OS X, from a programmer's perspective, must seem extremely flexible.
Keep in mind that the officials that buy computers actually don't. They receive their information from their technical staff.
Which means, if the school has more of a PC base (the subject of this topic since MS was trying to audit them), then the IT person would probably consider Linux because it would be the path of least resistance--they already have PC hardware, so why rip it out to replace it with Macintosh? Have the students use OpenOffice and Konqueror. Problem solved.
If the school has a mix or a majority of Mac OS systems, an IT person may consider simply ripping Internet Explorer and Word off the systems, and use Netscape and AppleWorks instead. Problem solved again.
I don't understand the Linux zealots who feel that going Apple or Microsoft "locks" them into anything. By using Linux (as in the kernel, not the OS), aren't LINUX USERS "locked" into a single kernel, unable to change (or highly recommended not to change it for fear of instability?) There is no such thing as a democracy in the computer world. You have to pick a side and use what that side offers you. Nothing says you have to stay on that side, and there may be more options and freedoms available on some sides (Apple, BSD, Red Hat, etc.) than others (Microsoft). Try getting a free multiuser licenses from Microsoft. On the other hand, try opening an embedded Outlook mail document inside a Word document in Mac OS X. There is relative good on each side. Don't piss on that of which you have no clue.
And another thing to these fact-challenged people in this topic: While Apple no longer has the vast 75-90% majority of their computers in schools as they did in the '80s, they still have a very large presence overall, especially in the K-12 market. Dell and Apple are the largest percentage holders in a virtual heat for about a year now. The rest is broken up by other manufacturers.
Don't just say "Windows" when you mean to say a PC brand: If you break down the market shares by brand in various areas, Apple still has a presence, and a significant visionary one if nothing else.
I am a rarer breed of technician than what most folks may typically encounter.
I have used and serviced Macintosh systems since 1987 (15 years). I have used and serviced PC/Intel-class hardware for a few years more (18 years). I am an Apple Service Technician, a certification valid only when you work with an Apple Authorized Service Provider (which I do).
More than a year ago, I was hired by a new IT company for Macintosh support, and received a very large pay increase commensurate with my experience. Recently, the client I provide services with had decided to move to a larger, more global IT solution. My company did a great job for them, but couldn't do the global bit. In the span of 3 months, a bunch of PC technicians, many with years of experience as well as some certs (of those, many had advanced certs) were recalled by my company from the client and sent elsewhere. Had they been employees of our client, they would've been fired.
I and a few others who had very special skills were kept to handle interests that the global IT solution couldn't handle.
This isn't the first time that my experience in many things Mac and PC has saved me from being ejected or moved around.
My point: Experience counts a great deal now. Certifications do help, but aren't essential (my Apple Service certification is really a glorified A+ for Mac OS systems). Diversity in your experience is what might make the difference between a job opportunity and a ding letter.
I have a saying, based on a '60s saying: "Never trust anyone who hasn't seen Star Wars in first-run." Most of these movies are good, but not great. "When Worlds Collide" should be here. "RoboCop", "Tron", "Jurassic Park", and even "Star Wars" should not be here. All these movies are good matinee movies but do not rate as good SF.
Oh, yeah. The Wired staff are sniffing meth if they think Gattaga has something over Clarke's F-451. Honestly, not even Blade Runner holds the top twenty on my list. Or Akira. Or "Boys from Brazil." Ick, ick, ick.
That's a cool conclusion, too. Never thought of it that way.
In fact, there's evidence to give meat to your thought: Jedi weren't allowed to marry in the old order, but Luke's new Jedi order doesn't seem to mind. He marries a character in the Expanded Universe (Star Wars comics). A balance of emotion and logic, indeed.
According to histories made in Star Wars expanded universe, the reason why there are only two Sith is that, at one time, the Sith armies were so power-hungry that they were killing more of each other than the Jedi. One Sith, a Darth Bane, decided that, from then on, there would be only 1 master and one apprentice. This philosophy is confirmed at the end of TFM with dialogue by Yoda and Windu at Qui-Gon's funeral.
NO ONE is born to the Jedi. They have created methods to detect force-sensitive kids at a very early age.
There are some 9,000 Jedi. Most are off-planet. About 1000 are close to Corescant, but most are academics, not fighters. There were 200 available for emergency uses, and we see them in action in AOTC.
Anakin brings balance to the force by assisting to destroy the Jedi so that, at the end of Episode 3, there is only one Jedi Master and apprentice (Yoda and Obi-Wan) to go with the Sith master and apprentice (Sidious and Vader). So, your end point is right--from a certain point of view.:)
Consider that, if the Jedi were as justice-seeking as they proclaimed, perhaps they would've gone to places where the Republic didn't hold much power, such as Tatooine.
If they did, Anakin would never had been born into slavery, never known anger at such an early age, and the Jedi would have found their Chosen One at a much more malleable age.
Instead, they now have a messiah that will destroy them to complete one part of his destiny. If they were as just as they claim, Anakin would've been trained enough to take any anyone, even Maul, and Dooku, and Sidious.
Still, that "Balance of the Force" thing works. Let Anakin grow up bad, and he will side with the bad to make things good. Let Anakin grow up good, and the good maintain their odds since Anakin is the most powerful force-sensitive being in the galaxy and, with training and experience, could take on all comers.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. I'm sure you won't mind if I borrow your significant other and your stereo and any code you've written. I won't use for anything illegal--I promise.
People who think that stealing others work gets on my nerves, especially when they justify stealing stuff i just happened to make.
The WORLD is not open source. You can't take everything for yourself. Grow up.
Let me preface that not all Linux or OSS users are total nitwits. I'm talking here of the OSS people who evangelize and generally annoy us along with similar zealots in the Macintosh and Windows camps when it comes to boycotts and pissy attitudes to the businesses that dare cater to "lesser" operating systems (in terms of market share).
If one thing never seems to get through a zealot's head, it's this: Never piss off the people you protest if you want something from them.
Case in point: Mac OS X is essentially BSD, and these users will be able to play the new game at the same time as Windows users. Further: Blizzard knows code, and could easily adapt the Mac OS X for a Linux port. They have proven this with the Diablo II game, of which a Mac version was in stores less than 4 weeks after the Windows version, and even created a version of Diablo II that works natively in Mac OS X. Other companies that love to port, such as Aspyr, could possibly be convinced to license other company's code for porting to Linux as well.
However, certain factions, namely the Linux zealots eager to boycott and bitch and try to steal intellectual property and server code and processes they DON'T OWN are rocking the damn boat for the majority of Linux/non-Windows/non-Mac people who wouldn't mind a Blizzard game.
Don't get me wrong. Protesting is OK. Comments are OK. Being a whiny bastard only annoys those who can help you--namely the people who write the software. I've personally watched the news where some whiny Mac idiot almost singlehandedly fucked us all in the Mac world when trying to gain support or software by writing a libelous, fact-lacking, and generally pin-headed letter that only Pat Robertson would appreciate.
Keep your principles and write nice letters of request for Blizzard. Battle.net is still free for those who buy the software. Battle.net would get stronger for Linux users if the shills would shut the fuck up so that the calm, pleasant requests for support can be heard.
Blizzard CAN write a Linux version of all their products. If you don't want it, OK. But don't do an Al-Queda for the Linux gaming industry by protesting and threatening and screwing around with other's toys (like the bnetd guys are) so much that your actions sabotage a chance at a positive action.
Let's not go into name calling. I'm too old for that shit, and so, it appears, are you, if you laughed at the resurrected "SuperDrive" name.
Your points are all valid, so we'll agree to disagree. And "fanboy" I ain't. I'm a computer person, not "Apple person." Like you, I have my choices, but I'm obligated to make good choices for my work, and many of them aren't Apple related. It's hard to determine from your comments which platform you would prefer if cost were not a factor.
Steve runs the company. This can (and has) changed, but Apple was nearly killed from that change. The "magic", if I dare to use such a word, comes from Steve Jobs and his "screw you, I like it THIS way" sort of attitude. It's not for everybody. Today, it tends to move things forward where everyone else in the industry appears moribund. I don't think I'd like the guy personally if I met him--but I appreciate what he does for his company, and the products he creates keep me employed and a few less things to worry about than whether my SMART drive settings were on or if I put that last jumper on wrong.
I don't buy the hype. I only have optimism because working dominantly with Apple, with all its highs and lows, requires it. But I recommend to users what they need, not what I like. Need to do video? An iMac or Power Mac. Need to write a letter and surf? A PC. Tight budget? PC. Hate fighting with a computer? Mac. It's not a complex formula, and I would be jobless if I were strictly an Apple proponent.
Not everyone wants to get their hands dirty. If that toots your boat, great. Innovation is subjective firsthand. Few people debate that Apple was innovative when it introduced the Macintosh initially. I guess we can really judge that much, much later.
Sounds like the traditional PC homebrew style is best for you. It's a fine choice. It's just not something that everyone can do, and I don't presume that they can build their own box. Hence my rant. We are in agreement on one thing: Woz is a genius and was the quintessential homebrewer.
You're right--your message is a troll. See the hairy little bastard under the bridge? That's your comment.
Historically, Apple cared not to add password protection to their first Macs for the same reason that you don't expect someone to ask for your papers just to use your toaster. Apple's original intent was to design the Macintosh for use as an appliance--something that didn't require a science degree to use. Easy. Efficient. Simple. NOTHING on a Macintosh was meant to be complex. That is why we STILL have only one button on our boxed mouse. This is a fundamental difference in how Apple and other companies, particularly Microsoft, design their products. If you, the user, want complexity, you're free to do so, but Apple won't screw their product by adding something that many do not need or want, and sometimes compromises the whole box. Perhaps you should think about WHY PCs had to have password protection to begin with, so long before Apple supported it on their hardware? Compensating for something, perhaps?
Recent changes to Apple hardware such as Open Firmware are extensions to this simplicity. In the past, Macintosh systems had fixed ROMs where the system bootstrapping code and portions of the system software was stored. This was expensive (these were custom chips) and inefficient over time (OS upgrades would have to hack over the hard code in the chips, if it could). Old systems could not be modified to handle more advanced OS tasks after a point.
Rather than go towards the use of the very inefficient and extremely complex BIOS format of the PC world, Apple chose OF, something that STILL didn't require users to go nuts when making hardware changes, and added similar BIOS functionality, including flashing. As an "old Mac user", you should know this, so that's why I doubt your sincerity, much less your knowledge base.
Apple is simply responding to the current world's need for greater security, particularly with the increased potential for cracking Mac OS X (it's basically BSD, after all). Apple may want a Macintosh to be free and open, but its just not that kind of world. Sure, password protection isn't not necessarily innovative. But it's a positive step in an otherwise dull market where innovation is still an exception, not a rule.
What you get out of your PC creations is your business. I make my PCs, too. They make great game boxes, but I doubt I'll make anything with it. With your kind of logic, Apple will never impress you. When you really need something that Apple's products solve for you, please buy it and enjoy it. Otherwise, I'm sure you can post to applesucks.com and not waste our bandwidth.
Apple has provided quite a lot to the computer industry. I don't remember Microsoft or Tovalds discussing how digital video would be a neat thing to do. I don't remember Bill Gates discussing the merits of FireWire or USB before 1998. I've never found a computer as easy to open and install new components as a Power Mac tower (and I've used a lot of computers since 1977). I would love for other companies to have a quarter of vision like Apple (Sun is one of the few exceptions: Java was a marvelous concept), but it's not that world. Microsoft earns its "borg" nickname for a reason. And they control the PC hardware design by controlling the OS, which is a shame: PC hardware should've been free of interrupts and other stupid things that Macs and other advanced hardware like SGIs have never dealt with.
Which is worse: Apple offering password protection at a time where it needed it and the OS fully supported it, or PC users being stuck with a bootstrapping process bound in an archaic resource management system that's so old that it makes my wristwatch seem advanced?
IAAAST (I am an Apple Service Technician)
You can still boot off of other media by holding down the Option key. From there, you'll be asked for the OF password, and then you can choose the disk you want to use.
For the record, I'm an Apple Service Technician, so I'm not quite talking out of the side of my face.
Open Firmware protection has been around since the Blue & White G3 (maybe the original G3) but wasn't really endorsed by Apple until now. I think they really wanted to make a formal way to configure it. Before this, users had to boot into OF and enter some arcane commands.
Basically, all Macs made since late 1999 work with this, but original and Blue & White G3s as well as early iMacs (made in 1998 and 1999) don't qualify. That doesn't mean you can't attempt to use the OF password features available on these systems, just that you may not be able to use Apple's utility to configure it since the firmware versions don't match.
As someone already said, all bets are off when a hacker has physical access to the computer. But, combined with physical deterrents such as locks and proper security (rlogin off, password on screen saver, proper admin and user accounts, etc.), this really helps teachers and other sysadmins who need to keep kiddies or college kids from overriding the system's security and installing or copying stuff.
Apple hardware has really needed this for a long time, and I couldn't endorse it until Apple did since it's a CYA thing.
WebDAV is used practically by many Mac OS users in the form of the iDisk service on Apple's iTools network services. Being an open standard, there must be some commonality that makes it practical to set up WebDAV services on any or all boxes for basic file sharing, or even a common location. iDisk itself isn't the solution, of course, but it shows the practicality of a WebDAV solution.
Don't reply to what you don't understand.
The XServe (not "XServer") comes with an operating system, like any other Mac. In this case, it's Mac OS X Server.
This OS provides an unlimited number of clients to access the operating system for file sharing and the like. In comparison, Microsoft and a few other server OS makers not only charge for the purchase of the OS, but add a per-user charge for each user account that will access the operating system.
Mac OS X Server is not Mac OS X, and your comment does not apply to this situation.
Mac OS X uses Mach, but its used differently from what GNU/Mach may use things.
IANAP, but some lackey on Linux Journal dared to write an article declaring the microkernel a dead technology in this article.
A ton of people slammed his lack of research and knowledge of microkernels, Mach, Mac OS X, or Darwin. The article is less than useful, but the responses from the irate readers explaining how Apple implements Mach (and its pretty damn clever--they take the Mach and BSD fusion to a monolithic state).
I stand corrected! I thought I saw something about this--
[Don't kill me!]
I've really enjoyed how the Linux/UNIX community has poured their time into making things work in Mac OS X. While OS X users have a really good interface already (and aren't likely to switch for good), adding KDE makes working around in X (as in XFree86, that is) that much easier. Further, it adds an additional arsenal of desktop tools that an OS user can take advantage of in the occasional event that an OS X native app doesn't do what you would expect.
I'll wait for KDE/OSX to get rid of a couple of more bugs, and then I'll try my XDarwin out on the fruit-juicy goodness of KDE.
Hopefully, this'll get the GNOME guys a little jealous and they'll wrap up their port.
The most likely reason why Vader never used Sith lightning is that it would short his life-support hardware. Or, more importantly, he never needed to. I do agree that merely being told what to expect is different from using the technique in the real world.
Luke did indeed return to Dagobah to complete his training to make him more prepared for the events of ROTJ. We can see a remarkable change in Luke's attitude and skill in ROTJ. That takes time. Luke returns to Yoda after the Solo rescue to learn more--probably because Yoda never said anything like "OK, done you are."
As we know, Obi-Wan barely taught Luke anything. Luke's most effective training was done by Yoda. I believe about 2-4 years progress between the events of ESB and ROTJ, but I'm not sure. That's still a lot of time for Yoda to teach some special tricks--but, I agree, combating Sith lightning would be up there in the "PhD" Jedi arts, and Luke certainly didn't have Yoda throwing bolts out to practice. Crash-course training and all.
A more "logical" reason why Vader is never seen using Sith lightning is more clear at the end of ROFJ. (Sure, I accept the "Lucas didn't invent it yet" thing, too, but things have to fit.)
Remember that Vader/Anakin is the THE most powerful force-sensitive--he was born of the Force. Any Sith lightning that he could wield would be quite powerful. But--using lightning may (and did) short out the life-sustaining hardware that made up Vader's suit. Doesn't mean that we might not see him throw off a few bolts before his transformation from Anakin to Vader is complete.
Either you haven't seen AOTC yet, or slept through the end.
Count Dooku threw Sith lightning at Anakin when he stupidly charged Dooku initially. When Dooku tried the same initial trick at Kenobi, he defended against it by "pulling" the lightning attack into his lightsaber. Dooku then proceeded to kick Kenobi's ass in a duel.
Yoda was so knowledgeable in Sith lightning attacks that he was able to first deflect Dooku's first attack at him, but then absorb it the second time.
So both knew enough on Sith lightning defenses to give Luke a pointer or two...maybe they didn't because they had knowledge that Luke's assault by the Emperor would be the thing to get Anakin to shake off his affection with the Dark Side. Or, it was just a good cinematic tool.
Your 2 cents is worth a dollar to me.
A saga does not attempt--and cannot--give a 12 hour story in a 2 hour format. Hell, most screenplays don't fit well into 2 hours from its novel origins.
Americans are spoiled by how Hollywood has made movies: They want immediate and final gratification. On that, Spider-Man wins. It's a good story in its own right. If you realize that life is a series of adventures, and not all of them spectacularly interesting, then the Star Wars saga's got most other movies beat hands down. Not that we should need Cliffs Notes for it, but there are many facets to The Flanneled One's little story, and it is enjoyable enough to those who are interested.
Very, very few people will talk about the Spider-Man movies in 25 years, I assure you. Not that Spider-Man the character isn't worth it--far from it. But Star Wars was meant to be talked about and chewed upon.
Consider these little morsels before you get your panties in a bunch about the fun that still is found in Star Wars (bad acting and dialogue notwithstanding):
* How can Palpatine, if he is actually (and presumed by many) to be Darth Sidious, sit nose to nose with Yoda and other Jedi and not be detected? SW history has it that the Dark Side of the Force throws off a bad metaphysical stink.
* A follow up to the first point: Are Palpatine and Sidious actually two different people? Clones, anyone? (Lots of dialogue on Kenobi's visit to the clone makers suggest that they can do anything to a clone, including changing its force sensitivity).
* Since we see that Padme's got a thing for scoundrels, does this later explain daughter Leia's taste in men?
* Why, for cryin' out loud, didn't Kenobi and Yoda teach Luke the various Sith lightning counterattacks they used in their fights? He could've used them...
The list goes on. I could make a small list for Spider-Man, but all it would revolve around would be how cold and wet we can make Kirsten Dunst's clothing in the next sequel.
All kidding aside, while Spider-Man the Movie has depth, it doesn't have a rich one. While Star Wars is just a popcorn movie, it's pretty good use-real-butter-dammit popcorn.
Katz' criticisms don't equate since he is comparing one movie to a series of movies.
[out of keyboard] Form feet and legs!
[out of display] Form arms and body!
[out of Windows XP] And I'll form the head!
[Robot's body shortly turns blue with white lettering crawling around it like an obscene electronic text ticker, and falls on its side ala the Dirty Old Man from Laugh-In.]
I'm not a developer, but this appears to have answered a great many questions for those developers teetering on the edge of Mac OS X development. My primary questions were answered pretty well from this document.
The nice thing about this document is how it tacitly implies that writing an OS X app can be done in such a way that it can be deployed just about anywhere with practically any imaging model and with many new or common IDEs. OS X, from a programmer's perspective, must seem extremely flexible.
Keep in mind that the officials that buy computers actually don't. They receive their information from their technical staff.
Which means, if the school has more of a PC base (the subject of this topic since MS was trying to audit them), then the IT person would probably consider Linux because it would be the path of least resistance--they already have PC hardware, so why rip it out to replace it with Macintosh? Have the students use OpenOffice and Konqueror. Problem solved.
If the school has a mix or a majority of Mac OS systems, an IT person may consider simply ripping Internet Explorer and Word off the systems, and use Netscape and AppleWorks instead. Problem solved again.
I don't understand the Linux zealots who feel that going Apple or Microsoft "locks" them into anything. By using Linux (as in the kernel, not the OS), aren't LINUX USERS "locked" into a single kernel, unable to change (or highly recommended not to change it for fear of instability?) There is no such thing as a democracy in the computer world. You have to pick a side and use what that side offers you. Nothing says you have to stay on that side, and there may be more options and freedoms available on some sides (Apple, BSD, Red Hat, etc.) than others (Microsoft). Try getting a free multiuser licenses from Microsoft. On the other hand, try opening an embedded Outlook mail document inside a Word document in Mac OS X. There is relative good on each side. Don't piss on that of which you have no clue.
And another thing to these fact-challenged people in this topic: While Apple no longer has the vast 75-90% majority of their computers in schools as they did in the '80s, they still have a very large presence overall, especially in the K-12 market. Dell and Apple are the largest percentage holders in a virtual heat for about a year now. The rest is broken up by other manufacturers.
Don't just say "Windows" when you mean to say a PC brand: If you break down the market shares by brand in various areas, Apple still has a presence, and a significant visionary one if nothing else.
I stand very corrected. That's a pretty embarrassing mistake...
I am a rarer breed of technician than what most folks may typically encounter.
I have used and serviced Macintosh systems since 1987 (15 years). I have used and serviced PC/Intel-class hardware for a few years more (18 years). I am an Apple Service Technician, a certification valid only when you work with an Apple Authorized Service Provider (which I do).
I'm also an author of this book on beginning Macintosh programming in Mac OS 9 and X.. So, I can write and document matters, too.
More than a year ago, I was hired by a new IT company for Macintosh support, and received a very large pay increase commensurate with my experience. Recently, the client I provide services with had decided to move to a larger, more global IT solution. My company did a great job for them, but couldn't do the global bit. In the span of 3 months, a bunch of PC technicians, many with years of experience as well as some certs (of those, many had advanced certs) were recalled by my company from the client and sent elsewhere. Had they been employees of our client, they would've been fired.
I and a few others who had very special skills were kept to handle interests that the global IT solution couldn't handle.
This isn't the first time that my experience in many things Mac and PC has saved me from being ejected or moved around.
My point: Experience counts a great deal now. Certifications do help, but aren't essential (my Apple Service certification is really a glorified A+ for Mac OS systems). Diversity in your experience is what might make the difference between a job opportunity and a ding letter.
I sometimes fantasize how much money I could ask for if I added an MCP certification as well as the new certifications that Apple offers for their products as a counterpart to MS certifications. For me, diversity in my experience has proved to be a powerful way to move up in the world. Being able to document and teach hasn't hurt either.
I have a saying, based on a '60s saying: "Never trust anyone who hasn't seen Star Wars in first-run." Most of these movies are good, but not great. "When Worlds Collide" should be here. "RoboCop", "Tron", "Jurassic Park", and even "Star Wars" should not be here. All these movies are good matinee movies but do not rate as good SF.
Oh, yeah. The Wired staff are sniffing meth if they think Gattaga has something over Clarke's F-451. Honestly, not even Blade Runner holds the top twenty on my list. Or Akira. Or "Boys from Brazil." Ick, ick, ick.
That's a cool conclusion, too. Never thought of it that way.
In fact, there's evidence to give meat to your thought: Jedi weren't allowed to marry in the old order, but Luke's new Jedi order doesn't seem to mind. He marries a character in the Expanded Universe (Star Wars comics). A balance of emotion and logic, indeed.
According to histories made in Star Wars expanded universe, the reason why there are only two Sith is that, at one time, the Sith armies were so power-hungry that they were killing more of each other than the Jedi. One Sith, a Darth Bane, decided that, from then on, there would be only 1 master and one apprentice. This philosophy is confirmed at the end of TFM with dialogue by Yoda and Windu at Qui-Gon's funeral.
:)
NO ONE is born to the Jedi. They have created methods to detect force-sensitive kids at a very early age.
There are some 9,000 Jedi. Most are off-planet. About 1000 are close to Corescant, but most are academics, not fighters. There were 200 available for emergency uses, and we see them in action in AOTC.
Anakin brings balance to the force by assisting to destroy the Jedi so that, at the end of Episode 3, there is only one Jedi Master and apprentice (Yoda and Obi-Wan) to go with the Sith master and apprentice (Sidious and Vader). So, your end point is right--from a certain point of view.
Consider that, if the Jedi were as justice-seeking as they proclaimed, perhaps they would've gone to places where the Republic didn't hold much power, such as Tatooine.
If they did, Anakin would never had been born into slavery, never known anger at such an early age, and the Jedi would have found their Chosen One at a much more malleable age.
Instead, they now have a messiah that will destroy them to complete one part of his destiny. If they were as just as they claim, Anakin would've been trained enough to take any anyone, even Maul, and Dooku, and Sidious.
Still, that "Balance of the Force" thing works. Let Anakin grow up bad, and he will side with the bad to make things good. Let Anakin grow up good, and the good maintain their odds since Anakin is the most powerful force-sensitive being in the galaxy and, with training and experience, could take on all comers.