If that's the case, I bet 9.2.2 wasn't polished enough to make the jump from 8.6. 8.6 was the best of the classic OSs in my opinion. 7.x and 9.x were crashy as hell.
...what most people actually working with the formats already knew. I've helped film students for 5 years now. If they asked what they should use to send DVDs off to master I'd say whatever is cheaper. When asking how they should burn DVDs so they could be read by DVD players, I'd say to use DVD-R. Turns out DVD-R is cheaper as well.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out who the clear winner has been for quite some time now.
Yup, plain old 10.2.6. Panther's aqua looks like someone ran a gaussian blur on the entire resource file. Also, the Finder has a slightly different icon; the one in the dock in the shot looks like Jag.
Make sure to set OS X to use passive FTP. Active has been disabled because of security reasons.
Re:Still no easy way to deal with image loading?
on
Safari 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Funny
And for good reason. Because it is easy to ignore you because you connections are too slow to fire off enough complaints! Slashdot needs to make their logo an uncompressed 50MB movie file that forces reload on every page and a script that denies the information of the page to be sent out without completing the movie. That'll keep the riff-raff out. The only dialup I want to hear about is the phone number of the yacht club.
Darling, the OC3 is acting a bit slow, I think I'll run out and grab another tomorrow.
Re:You are in effect saying that Apple hardware su
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 0
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, but I love OS X more than air so get outta my face!
You guys are in a dream world
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The iBox would devistate sales for Apple if it went off without a hitch. A fast, cheap, and easily upgradable box might be exactly what consumers want but that doesn't matter. Mac OS X costs more to make than Apple charges for it. Most people would buy an iBox to suppliment their current machine (server, etc) and would probably not even buy a new license of OS X.
So you get a nice cheap box, but at what real cost? The degradation of OS X? The death of Apple? Wake up, the iBox would be bad for everyone in the long run.
If BitTorrent supposedly tries to equalize upload and download rates, why is it that whenever I try to get a file through it, I end up uploading to my modem's full capacity (16KB/s, Basic ADSL) and only downloading at about 4KB/s? Are there people out there who learned how to spoof a high upload rate and therefore freeload off the network, damaging its effectiveness?
Also, does anyone know if there is anything contained in a.torrent file for copyrighted material that may, by the letter of the law, be considered illegal? Is running a torrent tracker for copyrighted material technically illegal?
As far as I can see, all the sharing functionality is still built in to iTunes 4.0.1. All the resource files still have the dialogs and menu items. Only the executable has changed to exclude that one "Connect to Shared Library..." menu item. The executable actually gained a bit of weight. I don't know a whole lot about resource hacking but I'm trying to add the item back in to the Advanced menu. I bet you all it'll work then. I'll post here again if I'm successful.
Apple engineers rarely take copy protection to more than a superficial level until the next major revision.
But you can't log out of OS X without losing everything... Once you log out all user processes shut down. I'm familiar with the Windows XP feature that allows for user processes to continue after log out and I can assure you, OS X does not do it.
XP did, however, copy the look and feel of the OS X login screen (which is just a aquafied version of the one from 9)
An album of 12 or more songs will run you about $9.99 when bought all at once. There are a few exceptions, though. It looks like Coldplay's whole album is $11.50 or so. A few items are priced higher but for the most part, you do get a deal when buying all the tracks on a CD at once.
I have the same setup, SBC + Hub and the only solution that let me share files and stay on the internet was to use the PCI ethernet card that they sent me in addition to my internal port and create a software router. Hey, it works.
But I still forego the ability to share files for SBC's (in my opinion) great setup that lets as many people get unique IPs on one account. That way I can share files via TCP/IP and get to keep my webserver running on its own IP.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme)
on
Linux and Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
My point is that Linux IS a kenel...pains cost money...
Yet another mis-understanding... Sigh... I said Linux is a kernel. The MacOS X is a GUI on top of a version of Unix. That shell took pains to make. The pains and money are for MacOS X GUI.
"Those kinds of devices already exist, and yes, many of them are running Linux. If it takes only a few months to create a product like that, it's doing a hell of a lot better than Apple! After 10 years of trying, OSX should be better than perfect, and it isn't."
My point exactly! A few months = $120. Hell yeah. The problem is that Apple not only pulled together an OS from free sources, they also wrote a substantial amount of their own code. The product you spoke of would have to be built on it's target machine. Moving it to another system would never work without tweaking.
The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS.
Yet again with the words. What I mean is that the OS talks to the hardware. I would sure as hell get nothing done if I had to punch in macine code for every task I wanted the hardware to perform.
And I know that's BS. A little advice, it's not too smart to try to fool someone who knows the subject matter.
Please show me somewhere where they give away for free Linux install packages on bootable CD-ROM that contain drivers for every stupid thrown-together config and boots into a polished GUI. IT DOESN'T EXIST! If it does please point me in that direction and I'll happily switch my homebrew Linux boxes to their version.
Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. That's not true.
What do you run off of then? Please tell me.
First of all, "core" has a very specific meaning, and I doubt that you mean that. Again, I urge you to research before you start writing, because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you can't conduct a civil conversation, I'll leave you to swear at yourself.
I guess core isn't an OK word either. Instead of picking at my language as Linux zealots tend to do, understand that main and core are synonyms, the kernel is the main part of an OS. You ignore my points and dodge questions. Stay still and behave for some nice Q&A. I'm not attacking you (anymore) or your choice in OS. My sole point is that Linux and MacOS should be respected for what they are. I'm sorry if you feel treatened by me or the fact that a commercial OS is coming too close to being exactly what you want. (Which I would also like to know) Just don't resort to your sly personal attacks. For those it's much more fun to have an outright swearing and pissing contest. I would like to know what you have against Apple. I look forward to some sort of nice resopnse. Also, instead of saying: do your research, throw those exact facts in my face. It's helpful to me and more satifying for you.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme)
on
Linux and Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
Sorry about my other post, it's a legiblity nightmare. I'm new to these boards so let me try again.
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself."
Point taken.
"And I should care because.....?"
Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do.
"Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either."
My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?"
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is.
"Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance."
Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
"Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!"
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple?
on
Linux and Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself."
Point taken.
"And I should care because.....?"
Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do.
"Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either."
My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking.
"Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?"
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is.
"Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance."
Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
"Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!"
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core.
Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple?
on
Linux and Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
Dude, just calm down. The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button. You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail. She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet. Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent. Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux. I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick. I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, I bet 9.2.2 wasn't polished enough to make the jump from 8.6. 8.6 was the best of the classic OSs in my opinion. 7.x and 9.x were crashy as hell.
...what most people actually working with the formats already knew. I've helped film students for 5 years now. If they asked what they should use to send DVDs off to master I'd say whatever is cheaper. When asking how they should burn DVDs so they could be read by DVD players, I'd say to use DVD-R. Turns out DVD-R is cheaper as well.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out who the clear winner has been for quite some time now.
Yup, plain old 10.2.6. Panther's aqua looks like someone ran a gaussian blur on the entire resource file. Also, the Finder has a slightly different icon; the one in the dock in the shot looks like Jag.
Make sure to set OS X to use passive FTP. Active has been disabled because of security reasons.
Darling, the OC3 is acting a bit slow, I think I'll run out and grab another tomorrow.
Mod parent up! Score: 5 Funny. Mavis Beacon OWNS.
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, but I love OS X more than air so get outta my face!
The iBox would devistate sales for Apple if it went off without a hitch. A fast, cheap, and easily upgradable box might be exactly what consumers want but that doesn't matter. Mac OS X costs more to make than Apple charges for it. Most people would buy an iBox to suppliment their current machine (server, etc) and would probably not even buy a new license of OS X.
So you get a nice cheap box, but at what real cost? The degradation of OS X? The death of Apple? Wake up, the iBox would be bad for everyone in the long run.
If BitTorrent supposedly tries to equalize upload and download rates, why is it that whenever I try to get a file through it, I end up uploading to my modem's full capacity (16KB/s, Basic ADSL) and only downloading at about 4KB/s? Are there people out there who learned how to spoof a high upload rate and therefore freeload off the network, damaging its effectiveness? Also, does anyone know if there is anything contained in a .torrent file for copyrighted material that may, by the letter of the law, be considered illegal? Is running a torrent tracker for copyrighted material technically illegal?
As far as I can see, all the sharing functionality is still built in to iTunes 4.0.1. All the resource files still have the dialogs and menu items. Only the executable has changed to exclude that one "Connect to Shared Library..." menu item. The executable actually gained a bit of weight. I don't know a whole lot about resource hacking but I'm trying to add the item back in to the Advanced menu. I bet you all it'll work then. I'll post here again if I'm successful. Apple engineers rarely take copy protection to more than a superficial level until the next major revision.
IMAX opening this Wednesday, same as regular.
You've gone too far, Dave.
Oh, no. They've changed something.
So, who else has their Matrix tickets already? I got 'em for opening night in an IMAX. Should be fantastic.
But you can't log out of OS X without losing everything... Once you log out all user processes shut down. I'm familiar with the Windows XP feature that allows for user processes to continue after log out and I can assure you, OS X does not do it. XP did, however, copy the look and feel of the OS X login screen (which is just a aquafied version of the one from 9)
An album of 12 or more songs will run you about $9.99 when bought all at once. There are a few exceptions, though. It looks like Coldplay's whole album is $11.50 or so. A few items are priced higher but for the most part, you do get a deal when buying all the tracks on a CD at once.
I have the same setup, SBC + Hub and the only solution that let me share files and stay on the internet was to use the PCI ethernet card that they sent me in addition to my internal port and create a software router. Hey, it works.
But I still forego the ability to share files for SBC's (in my opinion) great setup that lets as many people get unique IPs on one account. That way I can share files via TCP/IP and get to keep my webserver running on its own IP.
Yet another mis-understanding... Sigh... I said Linux is a kernel. The MacOS X is a GUI on top of a version of Unix. That shell took pains to make. The pains and money are for MacOS X GUI.
"Those kinds of devices already exist, and yes, many of them are running Linux. If it takes only a few months to create a product like that, it's doing a hell of a lot better than Apple! After 10 years of trying, OSX should be better than perfect, and it isn't."
My point exactly! A few months = $120. Hell yeah. The problem is that Apple not only pulled together an OS from free sources, they also wrote a substantial amount of their own code. The product you spoke of would have to be built on it's target machine. Moving it to another system would never work without tweaking.
The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS.
Yet again with the words. What I mean is that the OS talks to the hardware. I would sure as hell get nothing done if I had to punch in macine code for every task I wanted the hardware to perform.
And I know that's BS. A little advice, it's not too smart to try to fool someone who knows the subject matter.
Please show me somewhere where they give away for free Linux install packages on bootable CD-ROM that contain drivers for every stupid thrown-together config and boots into a polished GUI. IT DOESN'T EXIST! If it does please point me in that direction and I'll happily switch my homebrew Linux boxes to their version.
Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. That's not true.
What do you run off of then? Please tell me.
First of all, "core" has a very specific meaning, and I doubt that you mean that. Again, I urge you to research before you start writing, because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you can't conduct a civil conversation, I'll leave you to swear at yourself.
I guess core isn't an OK word either. Instead of picking at my language as Linux zealots tend to do, understand that main and core are synonyms, the kernel is the main part of an OS. You ignore my points and dodge questions. Stay still and behave for some nice Q&A. I'm not attacking you (anymore) or your choice in OS. My sole point is that Linux and MacOS should be respected for what they are. I'm sorry if you feel treatened by me or the fact that a commercial OS is coming too close to being exactly what you want. (Which I would also like to know) Just don't resort to your sly personal attacks. For those it's much more fun to have an outright swearing and pissing contest. I would like to know what you have against Apple. I look forward to some sort of nice resopnse. Also, instead of saying: do your research, throw those exact facts in my face. It's helpful to me and more satifying for you.
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself."
Point taken.
"And I should care because.....?"
Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do.
"Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either."
My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?"
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is.
"Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance."
Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
"Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!"
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself." Point taken. "And I should care because.....?" Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do. "Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either." My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?" Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is. "Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance." Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog. "Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!" I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
Dude, just calm down. The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button. You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail. She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet. Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent. Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux. I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick. I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so.