Yes, really, although perhaps the description isn't clear. For users of Amazon's EC2 cloud based servers, it is necessary to configure DNS services externally when firing up new instances. This is a small hassle. Having an integrated service that automagically does correct DNS configurations when new instances are launched and does some routing magic to send users to instances that are geographically close is really great for existing users of EC2.
What prevents you from both buying a legal copy and then obtaining a non-DRM copy through whatever means you are using now? You claim you have no problem with DRM on moral grounds, and no problem paying the asking price for the content, if that were really true, I don't think it would be that much more hassle to buy it legally and obtain a DRM free copy (something you are already doing).
You missed the point. Apple can test incrementally internally. They probably do. Perhaps I should have said, "imagine how difficult this would be for apple to test and SUPPORT".
When it comes to releasing the actual patch it makes much more sense for them to release as one large patch. Apple's user aren't you. They don't twiddle system files and compile the latest kernal in their spare time.
There are dozens of reasons why it is easier for apple to support these patches through point release. When Grandma Memma calls up and the customer service flunky asks her what version of Mac OS she is running, it makes everyone's life easier if the flunky can tell her to go to "About This Mac" and she can read of 10.2.8. Its easier for the user to read (rather than: well it says I have 10.2 with the following combinations of patches), its easier for the tech (who is mostly trying to enter the information and follow a script).
Can you imagine how much more difficult this would be for Apple to test? Instead of having one update to test, they would have N. They would have to test all the permutations of those upgrades (ie I have installed the upgrade to fix security issue A and C, but I havent yet installed B, D, or E, and I am having the following problem...).
Effectively this would mean upgrades coming out much more slowly. Its probably better that they simply release as one patch, yes it inconveniences a small number of people with five year old machines with processor upgrades and other odd configurations, but everyone else gets updates more quickly with more thorough testing.
Despite the comments in some of the replies, the "catfish debacle" really is an embarrassment to the US. The whole story is also worse than the parent indicates.
First, the Catfish Farmer's of America and other trade groups bought themselves a piece legislation that barred Vietnamese catfish to from being labeled "catfish". There is no scientific basis for this distinction, it was base protectionism.
They also engaged in a public smear campaign stating that Vietnamese catfish was tainted with Agent Orange and other absurd claims that had no basis in reality.
None of this worked. Consumers, in this case mostly large industrial buyers, bought the cheap, high quality catfish from Vietnam anyway.
This is where the story gets really despicable. The industry, at this point quite desperate, brought anti-dumping complaints to the US Commerce Department. The hypocrisy of backing legislation proclaiming the Vietnamese catfish was an entirely different species, while simultaneously claiming they were "catfish" for the purposes of the anti-dumping case not withstanding, the case went forward.
There was no evidence that Vietnamese catfish were being sold more cheaply in the US than in Vietnam (they aren't). There is no evidence that the Vietnamese Government is propping up the industry. Despite this, tariffs of 37-64% were slapped on Vietnamese catfish under the theory that Vietnam was a "non-market economy".
As someone who has been to Vietnam and met a few Mekong catfish farmers, I can tell you this distinction is a joke. The catfish farmers are small businessmen who simply have lower costs and lower profit expectations than it is possible to have in the US.
This story rises above shameful and becomes embarrassing when you consider that for years the US has been pushing Vietnam to adopt free market economics and accept US imports. It seems that we are happy to espouse free market arguments as a matter of principle so long as its in our own best interest.
The open source story is very interesting because it may be another case of being beaten at our own game. The initiative is so young it is difficult to accurately assess whether it will ever happen, but if it does work (and spreads to China, Japan, etc.) the pre-eminent position of the US within the software industry will be seriously eroded. That would be seriously bad news for US industry, government and economy, and you can bet similar anti-competitive forces would marshal to squelch such a threat despite the fact that the open source strategy would be a natural and legal response to the pressure the US has been applying to eliminate piracy.
Be careful what you wish for, I guess. Our just follow our previous pattern, if the wish backfires, cheat.
NYT piece on the Vietnamese catfish:
www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0722catfis h. htm
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, really, although perhaps the description isn't clear. For users of Amazon's EC2 cloud based servers, it is necessary to configure DNS services externally when firing up new instances. This is a small hassle. Having an integrated service that automagically does correct DNS configurations when new instances are launched and does some routing magic to send users to instances that are geographically close is really great for existing users of EC2.
What prevents you from both buying a legal copy and then obtaining a non-DRM copy through whatever means you are using now? You claim you have no problem with DRM on moral grounds, and no problem paying the asking price for the content, if that were really true, I don't think it would be that much more hassle to buy it legally and obtain a DRM free copy (something you are already doing).
Oy vey, his goal was to get Apple back to 10 billion in _revenue_, not market cap.
You missed the point. Apple can test incrementally internally. They probably do. Perhaps I should have said, "imagine how difficult this would be for apple to test and SUPPORT".
When it comes to releasing the actual patch it makes much more sense for them to release as one large patch. Apple's user aren't you. They don't twiddle system files and compile the latest kernal in their spare time.
There are dozens of reasons why it is easier for apple to support these patches through point release. When Grandma Memma calls up and the customer service flunky asks her what version of Mac OS she is running, it makes everyone's life easier if the flunky can tell her to go to "About This Mac" and she can read of 10.2.8. Its easier for the user to read (rather than: well it says I have 10.2 with the following combinations of patches), its easier for the tech (who is mostly trying to enter the information and follow a script).
Can you imagine how much more difficult this would be for Apple to test? Instead of having one update to test, they would have N. They would have to test all the permutations of those upgrades (ie I have installed the upgrade to fix security issue A and C, but I havent yet installed B, D, or E, and I am having the following problem...).
Effectively this would mean upgrades coming out much more slowly. Its probably better that they simply release as one patch, yes it inconveniences a small number of people with five year old machines with processor upgrades and other odd configurations, but everyone else gets updates more quickly with more thorough testing.
>Id say if I lived in Virginia, and paid taxes, I >would be happy.
It's time to play: Let's Spend Your Tax Dollars!
Ready?
Pothole fixed....
5.2 million dollar supercomputer....
Pothole fixed....
5.2 million dollar supercomputer....
I think I will have to go with the supercomputer, Chuck.
Despite the comments in some of the replies, the "catfish debacle" really is an embarrassment to the US. The whole story is also worse than the parent indicates.
s h. htm
First, the Catfish Farmer's of America and other trade groups bought themselves a piece legislation that barred Vietnamese catfish to from being labeled "catfish". There is no scientific basis for this distinction, it was base protectionism.
They also engaged in a public smear campaign stating that Vietnamese catfish was tainted with Agent Orange and other absurd claims that had no basis in reality.
None of this worked. Consumers, in this case mostly large industrial buyers, bought the cheap, high quality catfish from Vietnam anyway.
This is where the story gets really despicable. The industry, at this point quite desperate, brought anti-dumping complaints to the US Commerce Department. The hypocrisy of backing legislation proclaiming the Vietnamese catfish was an entirely different species, while simultaneously claiming they were "catfish" for the purposes of the anti-dumping case not withstanding, the case went forward.
There was no evidence that Vietnamese catfish were being sold more cheaply in the US than in Vietnam (they aren't). There is no evidence that the Vietnamese Government is propping up the industry. Despite this, tariffs of 37-64% were slapped on Vietnamese catfish under the theory that Vietnam was a "non-market economy".
As someone who has been to Vietnam and met a few Mekong catfish farmers, I can tell you this distinction is a joke. The catfish farmers are small businessmen who simply have lower costs and lower profit expectations than it is possible to have in the US.
This story rises above shameful and becomes embarrassing when you consider that for years the US has been pushing Vietnam to adopt free market economics and accept US imports. It seems that we are happy to espouse free market arguments as a matter of principle so long as its in our own best interest.
The open source story is very interesting because it may be another case of being beaten at our own game. The initiative is so young it is difficult to accurately assess whether it will ever happen, but if it does work (and spreads to China, Japan, etc.) the pre-eminent position of the US within the software industry will be seriously eroded. That would be seriously bad news for US industry, government and economy, and you can bet similar anti-competitive forces would marshal to squelch such a threat despite the fact that the open source strategy would be a natural and legal response to the pressure the US has been applying to eliminate piracy.
Be careful what you wish for, I guess. Our just follow our previous pattern, if the wish backfires, cheat.
NYT piece on the Vietnamese catfish:
www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0722catfi