The icon in the Dock is an alias (which is not made obvious, another UI failing).
It's not made obvious because it's not true. The items in the Dock aren't aliases - they're entries in ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.dock.plist.
Cmd+Opt+Dragging an icon from the Dock to the Desktop should create an alias to the icon *in the Dock*, not the original.
Make up your mind - do you want consistency or not? What you're describing is inconsistent with how the Finder works. Cmd+opt+dragging a Finder alias creates a new alias that points to the original target, not to the first alias.
But it ends up you can drag-and-drop app icons from the Dock if you hold down the Command key while dragging.
I was curious about this, so I tried it. Cmd-dragging an icon from the Dock doesn't create a shortcut on the desktop - it moves the *original* to the desktop. To create a shortcut, use cmd-opt-drag.
I *really* hope you're joking, but if not... Mac OS X supports multi-button mice out of the box. Even "classic" MacOS could support them, with the appropriate system extensions.
As for right-clicking, it does the same thing as control-clicking with a one-button mouse.
You actually need to restart Finder. Hit cmd-opt-esc to bring up the "force quit" panel. Choose Finder, and the button changes from "Force Quit" to "Relaunch".
Neither, as it turns out. My comments refer to Cocoa nibs, not Carbon. One would think that the reference to GNUStep and Renaissance would have made that clear...
No they're not. The objects in a NIB are stored in a binary format that's known only to Apple. That's why GNUStep's AppKit can't read them directly, requiring you to use nibtool first, to convert them to format it can read.
Perhaps you were thinking of Renaissance? It provides a means of describing a GUI in XML. It works on both Mac OS X and GNUStep, but it's not from Apple and doesn't use NIBs.
All you're paying for is convenience. A patient man on Kazaa strikes a better bargain.
I think you're:
Underestimating the value of convenience to the average consumer. Quick-e-marts aren't cheap, and yet they're still popular.
Overestimating the patience of the average consumer. People don't want to spend hours, days, or even weeks waiting for someone to share a copy of the last song they need to complete their copy of "On Your Feet or On Your Knees."
Not quite right. Jesus actually *made* his saving throw - that's why he was allowed to come back at all. Incidentally, that's also where the modern phrase "Jesus saves" came from.
Been right here. The company is StarROMs. They have have quite a few Atari ROMs, but none from Midway. The point still stands - not only is this collection a bargain at $20, it's the only legal way to play these games on your PS2.
In all fairness, his arguments in "Space Mormons" were fairly reasonable, given the context. As an atheist, I find the idea of primitives viewing a close encounter with aliens as a supernatural event to be at least as plausible as the idea of an encounter with a (or the) real god. There are certainly a number of passages in the world's religious texts that can be interpreted that way. He even said that he wasn't trying to present his comments as The One Truth, merely putting them on the table as topics for discussion.
All in all, the whole thing seemed like an exercise in what I like to call "Fundie Baiting" - a form of trolling. In fact, I'm beginning to get the idea that Proclus isn't nearly as fanatical about the GNU cause as he seems. I'm half-convinced that he's engaging in an especially subtle form of trolling. If that's the case, my hat's off to him - it's the best troll, with the most bites, that I've seen in years. You're right about one thing, though - Regardless of whether you interpret his comments in those articles as trolling or as the rantings of a crackpot, they certainly won't help anyone take him seriously.
Since we're getting further and further off-topic: I found one comment of his in particular - would monotheism have developed in a binary system - especially fascinating. All of the early monotheistic religions I'm aware of grew out of sun-worship. The first monotheistic pharoah of Egypt, for example, was Akhnaten, who worshiped a single sun-god. An examination of how religion may have developed in the presence of two suns would make for a fascinating science fiction novel - perhaps taking a "multi-generational" approach similar to that in Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt."
All joking aside, "digital media discs" does sound a bit awkward. I'd suggest "available for download or on physical media" as an alternative.
Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong
on
The GNU-Darwin World
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In your own words:
First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries...
Followed by:
Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.
There's nothing at all ambiguous about this. You announced your intent to move your active development operations to x86, while putting ppc development into "maintenance mode." According to the commonly accepted, widely used meaning of the quoted term, your intent was to continue to apply patches and bug fixes to the packages you'd already made for ppc, but only create new packages only for x86.
The confusion here arises solely from the incorrect headline
Okay, let's run with that assertion. The natural question to ask is, why was the headline incorrect? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that you misused a common term, and the editors who wrote the headline assumed you were using it in the more commonly-accepted sense - given the general tone and context of the rest of the announcement, not to mention many of your messages prior to that, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.
Another possibility is that the editors knew what you truly meant, but for some reason maliciously perverted the sense of your announcement for reasons of their own. As far as many of us are concerned, this idea isn't even half as credible as the first. To assume that every single one of the many editors out there misrepresented your statement would require a pretty high level of paranoia.
I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your intentions were a bit more benign - let's say you really meant you'd be buying and using x86 workstations for most of your work, and treating ppc as a secondary target rather than your main focus. If that's the case, the fact is that your words and tone did not accurately convey your intent.
Or perhaps you wrote while angry, or frustrated, and later changed your mind. That's understandable - it happens to all of us from time to time.
You need to understand the fact that continuing to blame others for this misunderstanding is not helping your case or your cause. In the eyes of many in the community, you are damaging your own credibility as well as that of the project you represent. The best damage control you could possibly do right now would be to simply admit that you misspoke, or that you changed your mind. No one believes otherwise anyway, and your continuing denials are the reason the issue keeps coming up.
Slashdot Mirror
Why go to mars in the first place?
Because it's there.
Being an open source developer is not a religion.
You must be new here...
I will go peeing for 2.5 hours
You need to see a doctor - NOW.
So after a few more plugins, we'd get...
Cenobites. Trust me - that's one puzzle box you don't want to open.
Also, Linux and BSD(therefore OS X) aren't from the same codebase.
What? I thought they were both stolen from SCO...
geeks/engeneers really will find a way to disagree with anything just for the sake of argument.
;-)
No we dont.
The icon in the Dock is an alias (which is not made obvious, another UI failing).
It's not made obvious because it's not true. The items in the Dock aren't aliases - they're entries in ~/Library/Preferences/com.apple.dock.plist.
Cmd+Opt+Dragging an icon from the Dock to the Desktop should create an alias to the icon *in the Dock*, not the original.
Make up your mind - do you want consistency or not? What you're describing is inconsistent with how the Finder works. Cmd+opt+dragging a Finder alias creates a new alias that points to the original target, not to the first alias.
Amazing, the Dock is even more inconsistent
Did I miss something? If you want to create an alias, you do it the same way in both Dock and Finder - cmd-opt-drag. How is that inconsistent?
But it ends up you can drag-and-drop app icons from the Dock if you hold down the Command key while dragging.
I was curious about this, so I tried it. Cmd-dragging an icon from the Dock doesn't create a shortcut on the desktop - it moves the *original* to the desktop. To create a shortcut, use cmd-opt-drag.
What is this "right-clicking" of which you speak?
I *really* hope you're joking, but if not... Mac OS X supports multi-button mice out of the box. Even "classic" MacOS could support them, with the appropriate system extensions.
As for right-clicking, it does the same thing as control-clicking with a one-button mouse.
And what means "restart Dock" ?
You actually need to restart Finder. Hit cmd-opt-esc to bring up the "force quit" panel. Choose Finder, and the button changes from "Force Quit" to "Relaunch".
I'm very glad I don't live in a country where any maniac can own a gun.
I'm very glad I don't live in a country where it's illegal to defend myself.
You're either lying or uninformed.
Neither, as it turns out. My comments refer to Cocoa nibs, not Carbon. One would think that the reference to GNUStep and Renaissance would have made that clear...
For instance, if they've upgraded gcc.
I didn't see anything in the release notes that specifically said anything about a new GCC. Here's what I get with "gcc --version":
gcc (GCC) 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1495)
His name was Meat Loaf Aday.
NIB files are XML files.
No they're not. The objects in a NIB are stored in a binary format that's known only to Apple. That's why GNUStep's AppKit can't read them directly, requiring you to use nibtool first, to convert them to format it can read.
Perhaps you were thinking of Renaissance? It provides a means of describing a GUI in XML. It works on both Mac OS X and GNUStep, but it's not from Apple and doesn't use NIBs.
Ravenloft was a direct result of White Wolf's world of darkness.
Um... no. The original Ravenloft D&D module was published in '84 or so, quite a few years before the White Wolf horror line.
I think you're:
Not quite right. Jesus actually *made* his saving throw - that's why he was allowed to come back at all. Incidentally, that's also where the modern phrase "Jesus saves" came from.
Been right here. The company is StarROMs. They have have quite a few Atari ROMs, but none from Midway. The point still stands - not only is this collection a bargain at $20, it's the only legal way to play these games on your PS2.
Did anyone else read the Dark Horse AVsP comic?
His name was Christopher last I looked...
;-)
Look again.
Christopher Reeve (no "s") starred in several cheesy Superman movies in the 70's and 80's. George Reeves starred in a cheesy Superman TV series in the 50's.
In all fairness, his arguments in "Space Mormons" were fairly reasonable, given the context. As an atheist, I find the idea of primitives viewing a close encounter with aliens as a supernatural event to be at least as plausible as the idea of an encounter with a (or the) real god. There are certainly a number of passages in the world's religious texts that can be interpreted that way. He even said that he wasn't trying to present his comments as The One Truth, merely putting them on the table as topics for discussion.
All in all, the whole thing seemed like an exercise in what I like to call "Fundie Baiting" - a form of trolling. In fact, I'm beginning to get the idea that Proclus isn't nearly as fanatical about the GNU cause as he seems. I'm half-convinced that he's engaging in an especially subtle form of trolling. If that's the case, my hat's off to him - it's the best troll, with the most bites, that I've seen in years. You're right about one thing, though - Regardless of whether you interpret his comments in those articles as trolling or as the rantings of a crackpot, they certainly won't help anyone take him seriously.
Since we're getting further and further off-topic: I found one comment of his in particular - would monotheism have developed in a binary system - especially fascinating. All of the early monotheistic religions I'm aware of grew out of sun-worship. The first monotheistic pharoah of Egypt, for example, was Akhnaten, who worshiped a single sun-god. An examination of how religion may have developed in the presence of two suns would make for a fascinating science fiction novel - perhaps taking a "multi-generational" approach similar to that in Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt."
All joking aside, "digital media discs" does sound a bit awkward. I'd suggest "available for download or on physical media" as an alternative.
In your own words:
First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries...
Followed by:
Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.
There's nothing at all ambiguous about this. You announced your intent to move your active development operations to x86, while putting ppc development into "maintenance mode." According to the commonly accepted, widely used meaning of the quoted term, your intent was to continue to apply patches and bug fixes to the packages you'd already made for ppc, but only create new packages only for x86.
The confusion here arises solely from the incorrect headline
Okay, let's run with that assertion. The natural question to ask is, why was the headline incorrect? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that you misused a common term, and the editors who wrote the headline assumed you were using it in the more commonly-accepted sense - given the general tone and context of the rest of the announcement, not to mention many of your messages prior to that, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.
Another possibility is that the editors knew what you truly meant, but for some reason maliciously perverted the sense of your announcement for reasons of their own. As far as many of us are concerned, this idea isn't even half as credible as the first. To assume that every single one of the many editors out there misrepresented your statement would require a pretty high level of paranoia.
I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your intentions were a bit more benign - let's say you really meant you'd be buying and using x86 workstations for most of your work, and treating ppc as a secondary target rather than your main focus. If that's the case, the fact is that your words and tone did not accurately convey your intent.
Or perhaps you wrote while angry, or frustrated, and later changed your mind. That's understandable - it happens to all of us from time to time.
You need to understand the fact that continuing to blame others for this misunderstanding is not helping your case or your cause. In the eyes of many in the community, you are damaging your own credibility as well as that of the project you represent. The best damage control you could possibly do right now would be to simply admit that you misspoke, or that you changed your mind. No one believes otherwise anyway, and your continuing denials are the reason the issue keeps coming up.