Insightful? Come on mods, how about "overrated"? This guy doesn't have a clue about where "Linux is headed". Have you read _any_ interviews of Linus? He is all about making progress on the desktop. What do you think kernel 2.6 delivered? 2.6 delivered great task switching performance. A 2.6 desktop is much more responsive then a 2.4 desktop. You don't even need to change any software, just upgrade your 2.4 kernel to 2.6 and you _will_ notice much better response times.
In most of Linus' reviews, he states how he doesn't care about "big-iron" server room type servers. He cares about desktop Linux.
Hey mods, how about doing a little research before you mod up some dummy, who has no clue what he is talking about? 2.6 was all about the desktop and response times.
as it is not fair to suggest Jobs alone should be credited with the success of the iMac
How would you call the iMac, power mac, $ANY mac a successes? I would not call grabbing 3% of a market a success. Heck, Linux has grabbed 22%+ of the server market and there are still tons of people who say Linux is not a success. I honestly just want to understand your logic that considers grabbing 2% - 3% of a market a success.
Personally, I don't consider anything that Steve Jobs has done to be a success. Apple could be grabbing _huge_ parts of the desktop market if they just dropped the whole "a computer should be a fashion statement" mentality and offered a good quality mac for sub $600.
Yes, I have seen the Mac rumors about a headless $500 mac. However, for $500, an average Joe User can get a Dell _with_ a monitor, and also a printer/scanner combo. So Joe User see a Dell for $500 that has a computer, keyboard, mouse, monitor and printer plus software. Next to that they see a $500 Mac that just includes a computer. Which one do you think Joe User will pick?
I think Apple is on the right track with a $500 Mac, though they need to at least include a cheap 17" CRT monitor in the deal to be competitive.
Do you really think we could have discussion on Steve Jobs on/.? Anyone that said he is doing a "good" job would be modded "Insightful", while anyone that says he is _not_ doing a good job would be modded a "Troll". Heck, I bet this post is modded a "Troll" because I even _hinted_ that someone would think Jobs is not doing a "great" job.
Hmm, that link was interesting. I am buying an external HD kit with USB 2 and Firewire. I will have to do my own tests to verify. According to that link, Firewire spanks USB 2 in true throughput.
Why hasn't anyone modded this up? This is right on the money. It is not anti-Mac or anti-anything. It is just how it is. Firewire costs more to implement vs. USB and offers no real advantages to _consumers_. I like both Firewire and USB 2. It just came down to what the industry felt was the least expensive to implement and USB 2.0 won hands down.
There were popups in that link? Have you ever heard of Firefox? Heck, I have heard that even IE on WinXP SP 2 now stops popups.
Re:Classical "there is more pressing problems"
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 1
How an intelligent researcher will continue his work once he is dead because we did not know how to cure him of a cancer?
I agree that cancer and AIDS are very important topics that need more funding. However, when we find cures for those two, Mother Nature will throw something new at us. It has always been this way. There will always be some major health battle that we as a world must fight. However, I think it is silly to stop all progress in other technologies to just fight health issues. Health science is just one branch in the tree of science. All brances of science are interwoven and advances in one branch of science often helps advance other branches of science.
They look nice. I didn't credit "my work" because I did it in two minutes, hence the mis-alignment. Also, would I be allowed to credit modified versions of these images without permission from the copyright holder? Or are the original images public domain?
It seems that if you _don't_ use MS technologies, you are OK from these types of attacks. To be safe from Spyware and adware, don't use IE, Outlook Express or Windows Media and you should be good-to-go. Do P2P users still use MS stuff other then the OS? There must be a lot of dumb P2P users out there if that is the case. Think about it. What person would try to get illegal music and download a encrusted DRMed format?
I did them in about 2 minutes just to give a better idea of the amount of land that was affected. Sorry if I didn't have time to make them live up to your expectations. They served a purpose to me. They showed just how bad the devistation was. Get over it if they were not the most perfectly aligned images out there, or do some your self.
The images look a lot more powerful when you stack two in layers and set the top layer transparency to around 80%. You can really see all the homes under water. I put some together here
but I don't see how any normal user would consider my 1.25 g4 powermac slow
I agree. I don't think a normal user would find it slow. A 1.25 GHz G4 should be pretty nice for Joe User. Though I think all the extra eye-candy does slow down Mac OS X a little, but it is still acceptable. However, I am a programmer and do a lot of compiling and don't like to wait ; P I found the 1.25 GHz G4 to not be up to par to more demanding tasks especially when I would switch to my 3.06 GHz P4-HT or my AMD 2800+ running Linux or WinXP respectively. Being married with two kids, it is hard to justify a $2,000 - $3,000 expense on one of the nice new dual G5's.
Russia has had to shoulder 100% of the transportation costs.
Oh, the poor Russians. We had to fund _everything_ else. Russia just had to use some of their rocket technology. Big deal. The USA has put _far_ more into the ISS than any other nation. So I guess we should feel sorry for Russia and let them out of their side of the deal while we still fund the majority of the ISS?
Exactly. We _built_ almost the whole thing. Russia is allowed to say, well if you want _our_ resources, you need to pay for them. While we (USA) have to foot the bill for the majority of the project.
I say we tell the Russians to go screw off and not let them use the 90%+ of the space station that we funded. See, we can be just as childish. Thats, right. Any nation that wants to get "technical" about what they have given to the ISS, we can just remind them of _our_ contributions of the majority of the ISS. Just as they want to charge or take away from their "contributions", we should charge or take away from our contributions.
Hey troll. I guess if someone doesn't say they love everything Stevie-boy does you get all emotional? Get a grip dude. Apple could be doing _so_ much better then they are now if Steve didn't want to keep Apple as a "Fashion statement" niche.
but I think Steve Jobs knows his business a little better than you do
No, I don't think he does. Apple could do so much more, yet they have _always_ been a small niche market with a market share that makes them obsolete. The Mac OS X with IBM's great PPC processor could be doing so much better if Jobs didn't have the "cult" mind of trying to make Apple a "fashion" statement.
Now run along and salivate over your life-size Steve Jobs poster.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there.
That is just silly. If I am spending my money, I don't want some used crap with no warranty from eBay. At $500, I would probably buy one of these as a "just to have it" kind of thing. A 1.25 GHz G4 is a little slow for me, but I could let my wife do here simple stuff on it.
Now, if Apple came out with a $600-$700 low-end G5, MS would really feel some heat. I think the iPod should have shown to Apple that people are willing to spend a _little_ more on features and looks. You can get plenty of good MP3 players for less. The iPod just seemed to have the right looks and features for a price that was acceptable. Obviously, 96% or so of the computer using population do not feel that the current Macs have hit that consumer "sweet-spot" yet. A 1.25G Hz G4 with the memory upgraded to 512MB should be plenty for Joe Six-pack. Though there would still be some software problems. However, I am sure if software companies start to see Mac market share going up, they would port in no time.
If this product is true, it could be a big win for Apple. I want to kick the people in charge of Aple in the head sometimes. I think Apple is blind sometimes. There is a _huge_ demand for anything that is _not_ MS at the consumer level right now. Tons of home users are fed-up with viruses and spyware. There just isn't anything out there yet with the right features and price. Joe Six-pack walks into the store, all he sees are cheap WinXP boxes from $300 to about $1,000, with the most popular being somewhere in the middle. If Apple can get one or two decent products in the $500 - $600 range, they could clean house in no time. Now I doubt they could bring down the big 600 lb. gorrila, but I see no reason why Apple couldn't grab 10% - 20% of the desktop market. Then we could really see some good competition.
since you're cheering about Microsoft's open source contributions
If you think that is cheering, you have some problems. I just stated that MS has given more to OSS then Apple. And yes, even their bad "Shared" source license.
First, Apple cannot possibly contribute to all the open source software projects that ship with their OS. Neither does Sun, or Red Hat, or IBM, or anyone else
Who said they should contribute to _all_? It would be nice to see Apple do any significant amount of contribution. The whole of their OS is based on OSS. Their OS sucked until they used OSS. They mostly do little contributions that benefit their OS. Apple doesn't even come close to what Sun, Red Hat or IBM have done to the OSS community. All three have contributed millions and millions of lines of code and big ticket items. Red Hat employs a handful of the top 10 kernel developers.
QSS, as just mentioned. Anyway, you can't make any money by just giving everything away. Ask Red Hat. Anyway, every vendor has to keep certain things for themselves to differentiate their product or there would be no reason to buy their specific product. That holds true for any vendor using open source code, be it Sun, IBM, SGI, Apple, or anyone else.
Again, who ever said to give away everything?
iTunes/iTMS/Fairplay: They can't release the source to these because it would compromise the authentication/DRM scheme
Huh? Their DRM was cracked in no time. Not releasing the code did nothing for them. So why can't they release specs for iTMS so all platforms can use the service? Being able to to purchase/download from iTMS isn't going to break their poor "FairPlay".
And, if you want to use iTunes for library management, there's Crossover iTunes.
No thanks. I don't need a closed source music manager. There are plenty of fine OSS ones that do everything I need. I don't hate Apple, I just consider them real contributors to OSS, especially to the extent that they have used OSS.
So your going to compare an individual with a billion dollar company? A company that would not have the OS X without the OSS that they used? Mac OS sucked until they built it on OSS. OS 9 was _really_ bad. Yes I _had_ to use it and it sucked. Apple didn't have a usable OS until they built it on the excellent FreeBSD kernel.
It is pretty silly to compare the "contributions" of a signle person to the _potential_ contributions of a billion dollar company.
Informative? All you did was list a link to OSS software that Apple _USES_. Most of those project Apple doesn't contribute to.
I mean, come on. How much of an Apple Zealot are you. Did you look under the "Server" section? Apple lists:
Apache httpd
Axis
Berkeley DB4 for OpenLDAP & Cyrus
Cyrus IMAP mail server
JBOSS
mailman
MySQL
OpenLDAP
SquirrelMail
Tomcat
I know that Apple has not contributed to all of those projects. I doubt Apple contributed to _any_ of them. I read the change logs for many of them, and Apple is not in them!
It is pretty funny when Apple can post a link to a bunch of OSS software and an Apple Zealot somehow assumes Apple had _anything_ to do with those projects other then to take from them.
All you did was _reinforce_ the GP's post about Apple taking more then they give.
I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS. Sure they have taken OSS like KHTML and FreeBSD, but what has Apple really given of their own creation? What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?
Heck, if you look through my posting history, you will know that I am not a big fan of the corporate tactics of MS. However, I will say with certainty that MS has given more of their own creations to OSS and even the poor "shared source" then Apple every has ever contributed back to the community from which they feed..
Let the Apple zealots mod you or me down. I have karma to burn ; P
I did RTFA and one thing I noticed was
Recordings is a remarkable feature
Does the iPod not allow recording? If that is true, that is pretty lame IMO. I would never purchase an MP3 or Audio player that didn't allow recording. I use my dog-old Archos Jukebox recorder every week to record about 3 hours of audio data from my church. I then convert those MP3's into WAV and burn CD's for others to listen to. I don't see how useful an MP3 player is without the ability to record from line-in.
I agree with you about how Apple as a company is. Though I don't think Apple can really stop this. They can only issue so many firmware update. Each of those firmware update can be reverse-engineered. I also agree with you that Apple as a company _takes_ much more then they give. Darwin is of very limited use and Apple has been very slow on releasing KHTML updates. Apple uses some big-ticket OSS items for their OS and server OS, yet Apple doesn't release any of their big-ticket items as OSS. That is why I don't buy a Mac (oh and because they are _way_ over-priced IMO for what they provide).
So use people (with "ordinary skill in the art") who can more accurately judge what deserves patent protection. There's still no need to throw everything out.
Yeah, that will work until these people with "ordinary skill in the art" get bribes and kickbacks or get pressure from a superior to grant a patent to $BIG_CORP.
The first one probably has prior art, so it's not "novel". The second one is probably "obvious". Even mechanical devices have to be "novel" and "non-obvious" to be patentable.
Are you actually familiar with these issues?
You are quoting how the patent office _should_ be, not how it currently is. Are you familiar with these _current_ issues? Or do you just assume the system is functioning as it should? Are you familiar with the Amazon one-click patent? As a computer programmer with "ordinary skill in the art", I an say that the Amazon one-click is not "novel" and is ceraintly "obvious", yet is was awarded a patent. I am sure the geek/. crowd could barbard you with tons of obvious patents and/or patents with prior art.
There are some that say all patents are bad. I am not one of them. It has been proven that patents (outside the software world) has, to a lesser or greater degree, encouraged inovation and publicizing of them and has made the world a better place.
I agree, patents are good for physical objects. Patents are not good for software.
However, if there was a way to grant genuine software patents while rejecting the "land-grabbing" ones . ..
And who gets to say what a "genuine software patent" is? You? Me? MS? Big business with their financial goals?
Also it is not a set of computer instructions, it is a design of mathematical principals . ..
It is just a set of instructions that a computer can interpret. It is nothing more in Computer Science. In mathematics it may be more to you, however in CS and especially to a computer, it is nothing but a stream of instructions. Stick to math and I will stick to CS.
However the IsNot patent (to say it is an algorithm is an insult to mathematics) . ..
So to be an algorithm means it must be complex? I never read that definition of an algorithm. I guess a function to add two numbers is not an algorithm?
. . . is simply a comparison that, in reality, has been used one way or another by programmers since the invention of objects (or even pointers).
Just as RSA is just a bunch of methods that has been around for a long time. RSA wasn't some monster leap-n-bounds discovery. It was an incremental improvement on the current state of science. Just as all discoveries/inventions are. Why should the "owners" of RSA be allowed to lock their instructions away when their ideas were based on previous knowledge of cryptography? Why should we allow software advances to slow due to greed and patents? Software technology has gone nowhere over the last decade. Just incremental improvements. Compare that to the major gains in hardware speed, storage, etc.. This is where patents work. For physical inventions. Not "thought inventions". An idea should not be allowed to be locked away and granted a "limited" monopoly. However, a _physical_ implementation of an idea should be elligable for a patent if it is non-trivial.
Patents, on the whole, are good things IMHO. However, abuse of them is evil. It is important we stop and prevent the abuse, but do we really want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Nope. Don't "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Just allow patents on physical inventions for a limited period (say 10 years or less), as others have pointed out, and the majority of the abuse will go away.
Do we (USA) allow patents on a recipe (a set of cooking instructions)? Nope. How is that any different then software (a set of computer instructions). Why should the multi-billion dollar food industry be forced to give out their ingredients and instructions while the software industry is allowed to lock away their ingredients (API, protocol, etc) and instructions (source code)?
I don't understand your logic about software patents. You state:
Like the RSA algorithm (patent now expired). That is a legitimate invention . ..
Then you continue:
However, things like the recent Microsoft "IsNot" patent should not be patentable. That is an attempt at a land grab. Also the patenting file formats in order to try and collect "tax" revenue from the Internet should not be permitted.
The MS IsNot operator patent and other software patents are _all_ bad. They are all just instructions to a computer. So you either have to allow the patenting of _all_ instructions to a computer or _no_ instructions to a computer. You cannot allow some and not the others.
You probably think the RSA algorithm is OK to patent because it is a little complex to you. Well it is not complex to everyone. We cannot allow "complex" software instructions to be patented while not allowing "non-complex" software instructions to be patented. Exactly who gets to pick which set of software instructions are "complex" vs. "non-complex"? As it is now, it is a non-technical patent examiner. To him, _all_ software instructions are complex.
IMO, no software should be patentable. All software are just computer instructions. Can I patent the instructions to cook chicken soup? How about the instructions to brush your teeth? If I were allowed to patent those, I would be a very rich man! I say allow HARDWARE to be patented, but not software. Neither allow a hardware/software combination. Just the hardware please.
[Insert argument about how big companies spend a lot of time and money on writing software instructions here].
Well, I could spend a lot of time and money on writing instructions to brush your teeth, tie your shoes or install your own home security system. Why should I not be allowed to patent those instructions while a software company is allowed to patent their instructions?
Slashdot Mirror
In most of Linus' reviews, he states how he doesn't care about "big-iron" server room type servers. He cares about desktop Linux.
Hey mods, how about doing a little research before you mod up some dummy, who has no clue what he is talking about? 2.6 was all about the desktop and response times.
Personally, I don't consider anything that Steve Jobs has done to be a success. Apple could be grabbing _huge_ parts of the desktop market if they just dropped the whole "a computer should be a fashion statement" mentality and offered a good quality mac for sub $600.
Yes, I have seen the Mac rumors about a headless $500 mac. However, for $500, an average Joe User can get a Dell _with_ a monitor, and also a printer/scanner combo. So Joe User see a Dell for $500 that has a computer, keyboard, mouse, monitor and printer plus software. Next to that they see a $500 Mac that just includes a computer. Which one do you think Joe User will pick?
I think Apple is on the right track with a $500 Mac, though they need to at least include a cheap 17" CRT monitor in the deal to be competitive.
Do you really think we could have discussion on Steve Jobs on /.? Anyone that said he is doing a "good" job would be modded "Insightful", while anyone that says he is _not_ doing a good job would be modded a "Troll". Heck, I bet this post is modded a "Troll" because I even _hinted_ that someone would think Jobs is not doing a "great" job.
Hmm, that link was interesting. I am buying an external HD kit with USB 2 and Firewire. I will have to do my own tests to verify. According to that link, Firewire spanks USB 2 in true throughput.
Why hasn't anyone modded this up? This is right on the money. It is not anti-Mac or anti-anything. It is just how it is. Firewire costs more to implement vs. USB and offers no real advantages to _consumers_. I like both Firewire and USB 2. It just came down to what the industry felt was the least expensive to implement and USB 2.0 won hands down.
They look nice. I didn't credit "my work" because I did it in two minutes, hence the mis-alignment. Also, would I be allowed to credit modified versions of these images without permission from the copyright holder? Or are the original images public domain?
It seems that if you _don't_ use MS technologies, you are OK from these types of attacks. To be safe from Spyware and adware, don't use IE, Outlook Express or Windows Media and you should be good-to-go. Do P2P users still use MS stuff other then the OS? There must be a lot of dumb P2P users out there if that is the case. Think about it. What person would try to get illegal music and download a encrusted DRMed format?
I did them in about 2 minutes just to give a better idea of the amount of land that was affected. Sorry if I didn't have time to make them live up to your expectations. They served a purpose to me. They showed just how bad the devistation was. Get over it if they were not the most perfectly aligned images out there, or do some your self.
Why not just post a link?
The images look a lot more powerful when you stack two in layers and set the top layer transparency to around 80%. You can really see all the homes under water. I put some together here
I say we tell the Russians to go screw off and not let them use the 90%+ of the space station that we funded. See, we can be just as childish. Thats, right. Any nation that wants to get "technical" about what they have given to the ISS, we can just remind them of _our_ contributions of the majority of the ISS. Just as they want to charge or take away from their "contributions", we should charge or take away from our contributions.
Now run along and salivate over your life-size Steve Jobs poster.
Now, if Apple came out with a $600-$700 low-end G5, MS would really feel some heat. I think the iPod should have shown to Apple that people are willing to spend a _little_ more on features and looks. You can get plenty of good MP3 players for less. The iPod just seemed to have the right looks and features for a price that was acceptable. Obviously, 96% or so of the computer using population do not feel that the current Macs have hit that consumer "sweet-spot" yet. A 1.25G Hz G4 with the memory upgraded to 512MB should be plenty for Joe Six-pack. Though there would still be some software problems. However, I am sure if software companies start to see Mac market share going up, they would port in no time.
If this product is true, it could be a big win for Apple. I want to kick the people in charge of Aple in the head sometimes. I think Apple is blind sometimes. There is a _huge_ demand for anything that is _not_ MS at the consumer level right now. Tons of home users are fed-up with viruses and spyware. There just isn't anything out there yet with the right features and price. Joe Six-pack walks into the store, all he sees are cheap WinXP boxes from $300 to about $1,000, with the most popular being somewhere in the middle. If Apple can get one or two decent products in the $500 - $600 range, they could clean house in no time. Now I doubt they could bring down the big 600 lb. gorrila, but I see no reason why Apple couldn't grab 10% - 20% of the desktop market. Then we could really see some good competition.
It is pretty silly to compare the "contributions" of a signle person to the _potential_ contributions of a billion dollar company.
I mean, come on. How much of an Apple Zealot are you. Did you look under the "Server" section? Apple lists:
- Apache httpd
- Axis
- Berkeley DB4 for OpenLDAP & Cyrus
- Cyrus IMAP mail server
- JBOSS
- mailman
- MySQL
- OpenLDAP
- SquirrelMail
- Tomcat
I know that Apple has not contributed to all of those projects. I doubt Apple contributed to _any_ of them. I read the change logs for many of them, and Apple is not in them!It is pretty funny when Apple can post a link to a bunch of OSS software and an Apple Zealot somehow assumes Apple had _anything_ to do with those projects other then to take from them.
All you did was _reinforce_ the GP's post about Apple taking more then they give.
I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS. Sure they have taken OSS like KHTML and FreeBSD, but what has Apple really given of their own creation? What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?
Heck, if you look through my posting history, you will know that I am not a big fan of the corporate tactics of MS. However, I will say with certainty that MS has given more of their own creations to OSS and even the poor "shared source" then Apple every has ever contributed back to the community from which they feed..
I did RTFA and one thing I noticed was
Does the iPod not allow recording? If that is true, that is pretty lame IMO. I would never purchase an MP3 or Audio player that didn't allow recording. I use my dog-old Archos Jukebox recorder every week to record about 3 hours of audio data from my church. I then convert those MP3's into WAV and burn CD's for others to listen to. I don't see how useful an MP3 player is without the ability to record from line-in.I agree with you about how Apple as a company is. Though I don't think Apple can really stop this. They can only issue so many firmware update. Each of those firmware update can be reverse-engineered. I also agree with you that Apple as a company _takes_ much more then they give. Darwin is of very limited use and Apple has been very slow on releasing KHTML updates. Apple uses some big-ticket OSS items for their OS and server OS, yet Apple doesn't release any of their big-ticket items as OSS. That is why I don't buy a Mac (oh and because they are _way_ over-priced IMO for what they provide).
I think this or this should work ; P
Do we (USA) allow patents on a recipe (a set of cooking instructions)? Nope. How is that any different then software (a set of computer instructions). Why should the multi-billion dollar food industry be forced to give out their ingredients and instructions while the software industry is allowed to lock away their ingredients (API, protocol, etc) and instructions (source code)?
You probably think the RSA algorithm is OK to patent because it is a little complex to you. Well it is not complex to everyone. We cannot allow "complex" software instructions to be patented while not allowing "non-complex" software instructions to be patented. Exactly who gets to pick which set of software instructions are "complex" vs. "non-complex"? As it is now, it is a non-technical patent examiner. To him, _all_ software instructions are complex.
IMO, no software should be patentable. All software are just computer instructions. Can I patent the instructions to cook chicken soup? How about the instructions to brush your teeth? If I were allowed to patent those, I would be a very rich man! I say allow HARDWARE to be patented, but not software. Neither allow a hardware/software combination. Just the hardware please.
[Insert argument about how big companies spend a lot of time and money on writing software instructions here].
Well, I could spend a lot of time and money on writing instructions to brush your teeth, tie your shoes or install your own home security system. Why should I not be allowed to patent those instructions while a software company is allowed to patent their instructions?