Really? To me, the "value" of Konfabulator is $25, not in what I or others can create for it. (Yes, I'm aware that $25 is the price, not the value, just playing with words to make a point.) If everything it comes with is inherently useless, I have no inspiration to do anything cool with it, hence it has no value to me. The included widgets ARE lame, although some of the third-party widgets I've seen are relatively impressive.
Granted, this comes from someone who is fairly fluent in bash, AppleScript, C, and Objective-C, so virtually anything that Konfabulator can offer now or in the future, I can make myself, and it will probably perform better. Of course it might take me a little longer...
I have recently been on a shareware-purchasing binge (I spent nearly $200 before I realized I need to pay my bills first!), and I really wanted to like Konfabulator. Unfortunately, the following things (in order of priority) made me decide to trash it and not give it another look for quite a while:
1. You get ONE launch, and then the shareware reminder is permenantly on your desktop. Nag screens, timers, trialware, quitting after an hour, hell even a faint watermark would all have been acceptable. About the only think worse than that sort of perma-shareware-reminder window is bonafide spyware.
2. It really feels to me that Arlo Rose et al are trying to take advantage of both the ease of development in Cocoa and the untapped creative energy of the Mac community. I could be totally wrong about this, but the less work they do, the more the community will do, and they will get paid the same no matter what. I hope the Konfabulator license allows one to retain all legal rights to their creation, including being able to sell it for exhorbitant amounts of cash, if they should so choose.
3. This is a minor peeve, but still valid, IMHO. Why JavaScript? AppleScript makes much better glue, and would make it very easy for widgets themselves to be highly scriptable and customizable. The syntax is even easier than JavaScript, and enables you to tap into a wide variety of OS X services natively without having to code even more glue between the scripting language and the OS. AppleScript just seems like a much better choice for a Mac OS X-only "widget factory". Hell, you could even have widgets that know how to create other widgets on the fly from user input. Oh well.
Like I said, I really wanted to like it. Maybe 1.1 will blow my mind.
You are full of poop! (Or your source is!) Cocoa is as native as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't Java).
Carbon is a collection of APIs, Cocoa is a RAD framework. Carbon is straight C, Cocoa is Objective-C which (unlike C++) relies on a runtime environment for things such as message passing and polymorphism. Also note that Objective-C winds up getting preprocessed into plain C code before it ever gets compiled. It is no more or less native than C. Finally, the two major compilers for the Mac, gcc and Metrowerks cc, compile both Carbon and Cocoa code fine, although Metrowerks' compiler is rumored to be much better at optimizing for PPC chips.
Cocoa provides you with large amount of functionality "for free", but adds a lot of overhead at the same time. Carbon gives you virtually nothing for free (unless you use CoreFoundation, but that's beyond the scope of this post).
(If you want to argue semantics about APIs and frameworks, just try calling any signifigant amount of Cocoa code from Carbon code. You will get all sorts of wacky side-effects. Now try to call Carbon code from Cocoa code. Oh hey, it just works!)
As a result, less experienced programmers flock to Cocoa, and hence you see a lot of underperforming Cocoa applications. Of course, lots of good programmers put out super-slow Cocoa applications as well, only optimize them later (look at Mail.app). Optimization in Carbon is totally different because you don't have a prebuilt library of objects which may or may not be providing tons of services that you don't need, plus you are in charge of drawing everything and handling your own events. In (an over-generalized) conclusion: Optimization in Carbon is a subtractive process, in which you hone and compact your code into a lean, mean, executing machine. Optimization in Cocoa is an additive process. You can augment existing functionality in a new and streamlined way, or you can add straight C code (or call Carbon!) to replace functionality provided by the (sometimes bloated) builtin objects.
No system is immune, however UNIX has 25+ years of testing while Windows releases are so frequent there is little time for hardening.
<Homer Simpson> I agree with you! In theory. Communism works! In theory. </Homer Simpson>
You are comparing the amount of time that UNIX (a common name for a wide number of totally different and constantly changing operating systems with different kernels, tools, applications, and philosophies) been tested to the release schedule of Windows (which is a product sold by a single company, generally released once every 1-2 years and patched just as frequently as any UNIX system that actually has a wide variety of useful software installed) and making a judgement on security. You know what? My television gets more miles to the gallon than the amount of electricity my grapefruit uses.
I agree with your subject line, but your content makes no sense. Then again, any old install script on UNIX can make anything setuid root, world-writeable, and world-executable, if you run it as root. The only way UNIX is more secure is if you read every line of code and every line of every script you run as root, and do everything else in a chroot-jailed sandbox. To be quite honest, that kinda thing would greatly decrease my productivity in any operating system, so I just backup my stuff frequently.
What is even less interesting about this is that the Reply-To header can be set to anything you want by most e-mail clients and processors. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing this, such as wanting all incoming mail to go to one account, or making people have to think about whether they want to reply to a mailing list or just the default of the original poster. The From header is the one that requires a tiny bit of knowledge to "forge".
This sounds to me sort of like referring to someone who discovers an unpublished URL by trial and error as a "hacker". Of course, I didn't RTFA, but I will once it is un-slashdotted.
Thank you and kudos for the prompt, polite, and insightful reponse to my half-flame.;)
Regarding guessing e-mail addresses: I though about and I agree with you for the most part. Corporate e-mail accounts are almost always based on the person's real name. Private e-mail accounts (counting strictly person-by-person, since most people have many long-forgotten "spam catchers") probably have a 1.5:1 ratio of nicknames:realnames. Certainly e-mail addresses are several orders of magnitude easier to guess than passwords. Nonetheless, I think it would be easier still to guess.name "names". Then again, I don't understand how there is a (apparently lucrative) market for lists active "opt-in" e-mail addresses.
Regarding marketing: I think you mistook me here. I was trying to say that no amount of marketing would make.name a good idea (where good == desirable to a large enough percentage of your reachable target audience). I'm just thinking about the number of people who really want to be easily locatable online, are willing to pay for it, don't already have a website with a short, descriptive URL, and have the same name as someone else who matches the previous criteria. I just can't see there being too many of these people. Then again I use a Mac for developing command-line software in C, so I probably shouldn't talk demographics out of my ass;)
Regarding web interface: I take back the part about querying for your name. It works perfectly well. I figured it was safe to believe someone who said it didn't work just because they got modded informative. Wrong. Last time I do that! As for customer service, if your company is hurting for cash (even if it isn't), the last thing you need is to pay a bunch of people $10/hour to sit and wait for the occasional geek or power user to call and ask about additional services, when that could easily be made available with a FAQ and an "advanced options" in the web interface. That's $20,000/person/year you probably don't need to spend. Worst case scenario you could me to program it for you and you'd only have to pay me for two days of work (less for anyone else, because I suck at web applications!)
Anyway, you seem like a reasonably well informed, good mannered, comptent, and hardworking (hey, slashdotting is hard work!) bloke, so I wish you the best of luck in the coming job hunt!
Excuse me?!?! I don't know about IN SOVIET RUSSIA, but here in the good old USA my ISP asked me what I wanted my e-mail username to be. In fact every ISP I've ever used has done that. Where in the world do ISPs "allocate" e-mail addresses in easy to guess patterns? You don't even need a phone book to spam.name, you just need a sizeable list of common first and last names.
If you ask me,.name was just a really poor marketing ploy and little more. First, as the numbers have proved, very few people want this service (or you failed to spam^H^H^H^Hmarket enough). Second, the few people that actually do want it can't even have it if someone else with the same name has already signed up. Finally, from what I gather, you're living in the 20th century. Your "query" form doesn't query anything, and you can't do anything but web forwarding set up from the web interface. You don't even tell people that any other services are available. If you are paying people to do things which are that easy to automate, you might as well just light your remmaining cash on fire. I wouldn't blame the quantity or quality of the marketing, the actual idea and implementation just isn't very good.
Ooh I'll make a version number joke. Ooh 11+1=12. Ooh I'll use the Emacs as a punchline. Ooh I'll make a lame Spinal Tap reference (hard to do, admittedly, especially with that scene, but you did it, iksowrak). And so on and so on...
I swear I never used to empathize with the "moderators on crack" reply, but the comment I'm replying to was by far funnier than any of the other "+5, Funny" comments in this thread.
No no no. The parent troll was talking about truly meaningful things. Here are some examples:
- Reaching 1 giga-fps in Halflife. Now try again in millions of colors! - Finally hooking up with that hot Sim next door, and you SimMom says you are finally old enough to start SimDating! - Downoading 4 hours of that God damn "lightning bolt!" video playing over and over again because someone told you it was Harry Potter (luckily it was a.wmv file so you couldn't preview it you had all 1.2GB) - Spending a weekend learning about and disabling 72 Windows services that no one besides Microsoft would ever need you to have (dang, OS X only has like, what, 8 services? oh wait...) - Fighting tooth and nail to keep the latest and greatest intrusive advertisement from taking over your desktop. - And last, but most certainly not least, let us not forget the hardest meaningful thing to do on a Mac: making it look like a poor Aqua rip-off.
I suppose that the continued proliferation of FORTRAN is a symptom of why the pace of significant new scientific discovery has dropped off tremendously in the last 20-30 years.
I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I really can't tell what you are trying to say here. How can one thing be "a sympton of why" something else (passive tense of some verb)? What does that mean? Do you mean that the proliferation of FORTRAN is a symptom of the slow pace of scientific breakthroughs or are you blaming the slow pace of scientific breakthroughs on FORTRAN?
I realize after reading it to myself that this may sound like a grammar troll, but as someone with only a tiny bit of real world experience with FORTRAN, and no experience (aside from what I see/hear/read in the news), but plenty of interest in the scientific community, I am genuinely curious as to what you meant.
While I agree that The Simpsons have been lacking lately, they are still much more entertaining than pretty much anything on primetime (IMHO, of course). Take for example this joke from an episode that I belive was new as of last month:
Bart is sitting on the couch and realizes that he has a paper on World War II due tomorrow. He takes out his note book and writes "WWII", then decides that much work warrants a break. So he says "Time to watch wrestling!"
The TV comes on and the wrestling announcer narrates: "Oh my God! Uncle Slam has just impaled Osama Bin Rotten with the American flag! But look out! Here comes The Secretary of Hate, Colin Ker-Pow!"
Maybe it is just because I was expecting much lamer material, but that joke literally made me fall off the couch and smack my knee on the coffee table. Certainly past its heyday, but certainly not ready to be "put out of its misery" as far as I'm conerned.
As for my favorite episode, I really have no idea, there are so many good ones. The short stories episode, the one were Ned's house gets destroyed and he flips out, and the episode where Selma (Patty is the lesbian one, right?) marries Troy McLure spring to mind.
Memorable quotes:
Bart: "Dad, why did you take me to a gay steel mill?" Homer: "I don't know son, I don't know!"
Marge: "You know this isn't such a bad place once you get used to the druggings." Homer: "Truly God's country."
Homer: "Look at this country! Hehe. YOU-ARE-GAY."
Homer: "What are you going to do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs that have bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you? Do your worst, Burns!" Burns: "Smithers, release the robotic Richard Simmons."
Any project for GNUStep should compile fine on OS X.
This is not true. Many objects present in the current versions of the GNUStep libraries (base, backend, and gui) have no equivalent in Cocoa. Mainly, the Display Postscript code, but there are lots of others. For example, any class that starts wiht GS instead of NS, GNUStep handles Unicode totally different, there are al kinds of macros in GNUStep that don't exists in Cocoa because they are redundant. Supposedly there are scripts that come with OpenStep that convert lots of this stuff over, but GNUStep has made lots of additions to OpenStep, and besides, I don't have OpenStep.
Case in point: I tried to "port" the GNUStep Terminal.app to OS X (don't ask why, I have no good reason), and wound up having to basically #ifdef half the source code. I'm about 75% done with TerminalView, since it uses DPS for everything, however most of it is easily converted to Cocoa. I realize #ifdef'ing everything was the wrong way to go, but I'm learning about all the differences, and my whole point behind this was to port it to OS X while being able to submit patches back to the original developer. I'm sure that I will wind up starting over again and creating a DPS compatibility layer, otherwise the resulting code would be totally unreadable.
In conclusion, yes, some parts of Cocoa don't have any equivalent in GNUStep, but that really goes both ways. If you code for portability, it will be portable, if you code now, think later, it will probably only run on your computer, and probably only at the current screen resolution.
I know that, but since there is no "+1, Correct" moderation, only "+1, Insightful"...
Seriously, who is going to wind up in court because of a mischevious IE toolbar? The plaintif would have to be very rich, quite vinidictive (you'd probably loose money even if you won the lawsuit), totally technically inept (sure you might not be able to find the uninstall link by yourself, but once someone shows it to you, the lawsuit kinda evaporates), and have a lot of free time. Besides, the only way to get such a case heard by a judge would be for him to have a great sense of humor anyway.
And anyway, isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape?
I really doubt it. More like the digital equivalent of harrasment. Even if they copy everything off of your hard drive and send it to their own servers, according to most Slashdotters, that is only copyright infringement (not theft), provided they don't delete anything. They are not threatening you, taking your money and/or valuables, nor are they forcing you to have sex (digitally?) without your consent. IANAL, but if you sue them you might be able to pick up a keen $5000 fine. That figure doesn't include legal expenses, of course.
Are the mods a little biased this morning? I'm the biggest Apple zealot ever, but the parent comment is not "-1, Flamebait", it is "+5, True". Apple has some excellent, forward-thinking, state-of-the-art external connection technologies, as well as the best designed hardware and one of the best looking and most capable operating systems available today, Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the G4 chip is lagging behind (though not terribly), Apple's bus speeds are still pretty slow, and they still don't use DDR RAM to its full capacity.
Uh, there is plenty of GPL code in Mac OS X. For example: bash, cvs, gcc, gdb, gprof, diffutils, and patchutils, just to name a few. Apple has, of course, submitted any changes to this code back to the FSF and any other applicable maintainers. They also have this thing called "Darwin" that allows you to download the open-source core of Mac OS X, which also includes lots of GPL code. However, there is also plenty of BSD code, like fileutils, top, and sysctl.
Finally, there is some proprietary code which you can purchase as an add-on to Darwin. It comes with an easy-to-use installer, a nice GUI, and support for actual commercial software that people use to make money!
Of course, if you truly must have your GNU add-ons, you can just install Fink, or, if cash is your problem, give GNU-Darwin a try.
When I went to the site (2 days ago), there was a note that said 'If you want the source, e-mail me and I'll send it to you.' Perhaps he didn't think too many people would be interested, or has limited webspace.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? To me, the "value" of Konfabulator is $25, not in what I or others can create for it. (Yes, I'm aware that $25 is the price, not the value, just playing with words to make a point.) If everything it comes with is inherently useless, I have no inspiration to do anything cool with it, hence it has no value to me. The included widgets ARE lame, although some of the third-party widgets I've seen are relatively impressive.
Granted, this comes from someone who is fairly fluent in bash, AppleScript, C, and Objective-C, so virtually anything that Konfabulator can offer now or in the future, I can make myself, and it will probably perform better. Of course it might take me a little longer...
I have recently been on a shareware-purchasing binge (I spent nearly $200 before I realized I need to pay my bills first!), and I really wanted to like Konfabulator. Unfortunately, the following things (in order of priority) made me decide to trash it and not give it another look for quite a while:
1. You get ONE launch, and then the shareware reminder is permenantly on your desktop. Nag screens, timers, trialware, quitting after an hour, hell even a faint watermark would all have been acceptable. About the only think worse than that sort of perma-shareware-reminder window is bonafide spyware.
2. It really feels to me that Arlo Rose et al are trying to take advantage of both the ease of development in Cocoa and the untapped creative energy of the Mac community. I could be totally wrong about this, but the less work they do, the more the community will do, and they will get paid the same no matter what. I hope the Konfabulator license allows one to retain all legal rights to their creation, including being able to sell it for exhorbitant amounts of cash, if they should so choose.
3. This is a minor peeve, but still valid, IMHO. Why JavaScript? AppleScript makes much better glue, and would make it very easy for widgets themselves to be highly scriptable and customizable. The syntax is even easier than JavaScript, and enables you to tap into a wide variety of OS X services natively without having to code even more glue between the scripting language and the OS. AppleScript just seems like a much better choice for a Mac OS X-only "widget factory". Hell, you could even have widgets that know how to create other widgets on the fly from user input. Oh well.
Like I said, I really wanted to like it. Maybe 1.1 will blow my mind.
You are full of poop! (Or your source is!) Cocoa is as native as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't Java).
Carbon is a collection of APIs, Cocoa is a RAD framework. Carbon is straight C, Cocoa is Objective-C which (unlike C++) relies on a runtime environment for things such as message passing and polymorphism. Also note that Objective-C winds up getting preprocessed into plain C code before it ever gets compiled. It is no more or less native than C. Finally, the two major compilers for the Mac, gcc and Metrowerks cc, compile both Carbon and Cocoa code fine, although Metrowerks' compiler is rumored to be much better at optimizing for PPC chips.
Cocoa provides you with large amount of functionality "for free", but adds a lot of overhead at the same time. Carbon gives you virtually nothing for free (unless you use CoreFoundation, but that's beyond the scope of this post).
(If you want to argue semantics about APIs and frameworks, just try calling any signifigant amount of Cocoa code from Carbon code. You will get all sorts of wacky side-effects. Now try to call Carbon code from Cocoa code. Oh hey, it just works!)
As a result, less experienced programmers flock to Cocoa, and hence you see a lot of underperforming Cocoa applications. Of course, lots of good programmers put out super-slow Cocoa applications as well, only optimize them later (look at Mail.app). Optimization in Carbon is totally different because you don't have a prebuilt library of objects which may or may not be providing tons of services that you don't need, plus you are in charge of drawing everything and handling your own events. In (an over-generalized) conclusion: Optimization in Carbon is a subtractive process, in which you hone and compact your code into a lean, mean, executing machine. Optimization in Cocoa is an additive process. You can augment existing functionality in a new and streamlined way, or you can add straight C code (or call Carbon!) to replace functionality provided by the (sometimes bloated) builtin objects.
No system is immune, however UNIX has 25+ years of testing while Windows releases are so frequent there is little time for hardening.
<Homer Simpson>
I agree with you! In theory.
Communism works! In theory.
</Homer Simpson>
You are comparing the amount of time that UNIX (a common name for a wide number of totally different and constantly changing operating systems with different kernels, tools, applications, and philosophies) been tested to the release schedule of Windows (which is a product sold by a single company, generally released once every 1-2 years and patched just as frequently as any UNIX system that actually has a wide variety of useful software installed) and making a judgement on security. You know what? My television gets more miles to the gallon than the amount of electricity my grapefruit uses.
I agree with your subject line, but your content makes no sense. Then again, any old install script on UNIX can make anything setuid root, world-writeable, and world-executable, if you run it as root. The only way UNIX is more secure is if you read every line of code and every line of every script you run as root, and do everything else in a chroot-jailed sandbox. To be quite honest, that kinda thing would greatly decrease my productivity in any operating system, so I just backup my stuff frequently.
If you are a girl, living in the US, absolutely!
Hello? Can someone mod this post back up to at least a 0? There is nothing available on the sourceforge page and it says 0% activity last week.
What is even less interesting about this is that the Reply-To header can be set to anything you want by most e-mail clients and processors. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing this, such as wanting all incoming mail to go to one account, or making people have to think about whether they want to reply to a mailing list or just the default of the original poster. The From header is the one that requires a tiny bit of knowledge to "forge".
This sounds to me sort of like referring to someone who discovers an unpublished URL by trial and error as a "hacker". Of course, I didn't RTFA, but I will once it is un-slashdotted.
Thank you and kudos for the prompt, polite, and insightful reponse to my half-flame. ;)
.name "names". Then again, I don't understand how there is a (apparently lucrative) market for lists active "opt-in" e-mail addresses.
.name a good idea (where good == desirable to a large enough percentage of your reachable target audience). I'm just thinking about the number of people who really want to be easily locatable online, are willing to pay for it, don't already have a website with a short, descriptive URL, and have the same name as someone else who matches the previous criteria. I just can't see there being too many of these people. Then again I use a Mac for developing command-line software in C, so I probably shouldn't talk demographics out of my ass ;)
Regarding guessing e-mail addresses: I though about and I agree with you for the most part. Corporate e-mail accounts are almost always based on the person's real name. Private e-mail accounts (counting strictly person-by-person, since most people have many long-forgotten "spam catchers") probably have a 1.5:1 ratio of nicknames:realnames. Certainly e-mail addresses are several orders of magnitude easier to guess than passwords. Nonetheless, I think it would be easier still to guess
Regarding marketing: I think you mistook me here. I was trying to say that no amount of marketing would make
Regarding web interface: I take back the part about querying for your name. It works perfectly well. I figured it was safe to believe someone who said it didn't work just because they got modded informative. Wrong. Last time I do that! As for customer service, if your company is hurting for cash (even if it isn't), the last thing you need is to pay a bunch of people $10/hour to sit and wait for the occasional geek or power user to call and ask about additional services, when that could easily be made available with a FAQ and an "advanced options" in the web interface. That's $20,000/person/year you probably don't need to spend. Worst case scenario you could me to program it for you and you'd only have to pay me for two days of work (less for anyone else, because I suck at web applications!)
Anyway, you seem like a reasonably well informed, good mannered, comptent, and hardworking (hey, slashdotting is hard work!) bloke, so I wish you the best of luck in the coming job hunt!
Excuse me?!?! I don't know about IN SOVIET RUSSIA, but here in the good old USA my ISP asked me what I wanted my e-mail username to be. In fact every ISP I've ever used has done that. Where in the world do ISPs "allocate" e-mail addresses in easy to guess patterns? You don't even need a phone book to spam .name, you just need a sizeable list of common first and last names.
.name was just a really poor marketing ploy and little more. First, as the numbers have proved, very few people want this service (or you failed to spam^H^H^H^Hmarket enough). Second, the few people that actually do want it can't even have it if someone else with the same name has already signed up. Finally, from what I gather, you're living in the 20th century. Your "query" form doesn't query anything, and you can't do anything but web forwarding set up from the web interface. You don't even tell people that any other services are available. If you are paying people to do things which are that easy to automate, you might as well just light your remmaining cash on fire. I wouldn't blame the quantity or quality of the marketing, the actual idea and implementation just isn't very good.
If you ask me,
Ooh I'll make a version number joke. Ooh 11+1=12. Ooh I'll use the Emacs as a punchline. Ooh I'll make a lame Spinal Tap reference (hard to do, admittedly, especially with that scene, but you did it, iksowrak). And so on and so on...
I swear I never used to empathize with the "moderators on crack" reply, but the comment I'm replying to was by far funnier than any of the other "+5, Funny" comments in this thread.
How are these "moderators"?
</voice>
No no no. The parent troll was talking about truly meaningful things. Here are some examples:
.wmv file so you couldn't preview it you had all 1.2GB)
- Reaching 1 giga-fps in Halflife. Now try again in millions of colors!
- Finally hooking up with that hot Sim next door, and you SimMom says you are finally old enough to start SimDating!
- Downoading 4 hours of that God damn "lightning bolt!" video playing over and over again because someone told you it was Harry Potter (luckily it was a
- Spending a weekend learning about and disabling 72 Windows services that no one besides Microsoft would ever need you to have (dang, OS X only has like, what, 8 services? oh wait...)
- Fighting tooth and nail to keep the latest and greatest intrusive advertisement from taking over your desktop.
- And last, but most certainly not least, let us not forget the hardest meaningful thing to do on a Mac: making it look like a poor Aqua rip-off.
Put the line 'source ~/.bash_profile' into your ~/.xinitrc file.
I agree the letter X is overutilized, but Apple could have done much worse. For example, they could have called it the "iRaq".
I suppose that the continued proliferation of FORTRAN is a symptom of why the pace of significant new scientific discovery has dropped off tremendously in the last 20-30 years.
I'm usually not one to argue semantics, but I really can't tell what you are trying to say here. How can one thing be "a sympton of why" something else (passive tense of some verb)? What does that mean? Do you mean that the proliferation of FORTRAN is a symptom of the slow pace of scientific breakthroughs or are you blaming the slow pace of scientific breakthroughs on FORTRAN?
I realize after reading it to myself that this may sound like a grammar troll, but as someone with only a tiny bit of real world experience with FORTRAN, and no experience (aside from what I see/hear/read in the news), but plenty of interest in the scientific community, I am genuinely curious as to what you meant.
While I agree that The Simpsons have been lacking lately, they are still much more entertaining than pretty much anything on primetime (IMHO, of course). Take for example this joke from an episode that I belive was new as of last month:
Bart is sitting on the couch and realizes that he has a paper on World War II due tomorrow. He takes out his note book and writes "WWII", then decides that much work warrants a break. So he says "Time to watch wrestling!"
The TV comes on and the wrestling announcer narrates: "Oh my God! Uncle Slam has just impaled Osama Bin Rotten with the American flag! But look out! Here comes The Secretary of Hate, Colin Ker-Pow!"
Maybe it is just because I was expecting much lamer material, but that joke literally made me fall off the couch and smack my knee on the coffee table. Certainly past its heyday, but certainly not ready to be "put out of its misery" as far as I'm conerned.
As for my favorite episode, I really have no idea, there are so many good ones. The short stories episode, the one were Ned's house gets destroyed and he flips out, and the episode where Selma (Patty is the lesbian one, right?) marries Troy McLure spring to mind.
Memorable quotes:
Bart: "Dad, why did you take me to a gay steel mill?"
Homer: "I don't know son, I don't know!"
Marge: "You know this isn't such a bad place once you get used to the druggings."
Homer: "Truly God's country."
Homer: "Look at this country! Hehe. YOU-ARE-GAY."
Homer: "What are you going to do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs that have bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you? Do your worst, Burns!"
Burns: "Smithers, release the robotic Richard Simmons."
*groan*
Edit -> Spelling -> Check Spelling As You Type
Remember, it's a beta.
Safari uses the built-in spell-checker, it is just off by default.
Any project for GNUStep should compile fine on OS X.
This is not true. Many objects present in the current versions of the GNUStep libraries (base, backend, and gui) have no equivalent in Cocoa. Mainly, the Display Postscript code, but there are lots of others. For example, any class that starts wiht GS instead of NS, GNUStep handles Unicode totally different, there are al kinds of macros in GNUStep that don't exists in Cocoa because they are redundant. Supposedly there are scripts that come with OpenStep that convert lots of this stuff over, but GNUStep has made lots of additions to OpenStep, and besides, I don't have OpenStep.
Case in point: I tried to "port" the GNUStep Terminal.app to OS X (don't ask why, I have no good reason), and wound up having to basically #ifdef half the source code. I'm about 75% done with TerminalView, since it uses DPS for everything, however most of it is easily converted to Cocoa. I realize #ifdef'ing everything was the wrong way to go, but I'm learning about all the differences, and my whole point behind this was to port it to OS X while being able to submit patches back to the original developer. I'm sure that I will wind up starting over again and creating a DPS compatibility layer, otherwise the resulting code would be totally unreadable.
In conclusion, yes, some parts of Cocoa don't have any equivalent in GNUStep, but that really goes both ways. If you code for portability, it will be portable, if you code now, think later, it will probably only run on your computer, and probably only at the current screen resolution.
Then those Slashdotters would be wrong.
I know that, but since there is no "+1, Correct" moderation, only "+1, Insightful"...
Seriously, who is going to wind up in court because of a mischevious IE toolbar? The plaintif would have to be very rich, quite vinidictive (you'd probably loose money even if you won the lawsuit), totally technically inept (sure you might not be able to find the uninstall link by yourself, but once someone shows it to you, the lawsuit kinda evaporates), and have a lot of free time. Besides, the only way to get such a case heard by a judge would be for him to have a great sense of humor anyway.
And anyway, isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape?
I really doubt it. More like the digital equivalent of harrasment. Even if they copy everything off of your hard drive and send it to their own servers, according to most Slashdotters, that is only copyright infringement (not theft), provided they don't delete anything. They are not threatening you, taking your money and/or valuables, nor are they forcing you to have sex (digitally?) without your consent. IANAL, but if you sue them you might be able to pick up a keen $5000 fine. That figure doesn't include legal expenses, of course.
Are the mods a little biased this morning? I'm the biggest Apple zealot ever, but the parent comment is not "-1, Flamebait", it is "+5, True". Apple has some excellent, forward-thinking, state-of-the-art external connection technologies, as well as the best designed hardware and one of the best looking and most capable operating systems available today, Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the G4 chip is lagging behind (though not terribly), Apple's bus speeds are still pretty slow, and they still don't use DDR RAM to its full capacity.
Uh, there is plenty of GPL code in Mac OS X. For example: bash, cvs, gcc, gdb, gprof, diffutils, and patchutils, just to name a few. Apple has, of course, submitted any changes to this code back to the FSF and any other applicable maintainers. They also have this thing called "Darwin" that allows you to download the open-source core of Mac OS X, which also includes lots of GPL code. However, there is also plenty of BSD code, like fileutils, top, and sysctl.
;)
Finally, there is some proprietary code which you can purchase as an add-on to Darwin. It comes with an easy-to-use installer, a nice GUI, and support for actual commercial software that people use to make money!
Of course, if you truly must have your GNU add-ons, you can just install Fink, or, if cash is your problem, give GNU-Darwin a try.
I know, I know, I Have Been Trolled
Ha! Have you ever tried typing the following into your Terminal.app?
'defaults read NSGlobalDomain'
There's your registry!
When I went to the site (2 days ago), there was a note that said 'If you want the source, e-mail me and I'll send it to you.' Perhaps he didn't think too many people would be interested, or has limited webspace.
How about:
1) He wanted ColdFusion, not PHP.
2) Apache and PHP (and even mod_perl) come pre-installed even on the client version.