True, but Carbon is most certainly a stopgap measure, while Cocoa is more a long-term solution. From Apple's pages:
Carbon is designed to provide a gentle migration path for developers transitioning from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. --- Cocoa provides developers starting new Mac OS X-only projects the fastest way to full-featured implementations
Microsoft's palladium faq [microsoft.com] states that you can still run old non trusted apps but admits linux can not run due ot legal rather then technical reasons.
Maybe you should read your own links.. From the link you provided:
Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware?
A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions[1]). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine.
What the FAQ does say is that it would be hard to create a similar trust architecture under Linux, due to patents and other legal reasons. Which is something I don't think most Linux users are gonna be missing anyway.
Nice troll attempt, but the difference between yours and theirs is with their policy, you have a chance to read the policy before you decide whether to spam the list or not. Wirh your policy, you don't have a choice (the 'reading the post' fee). Also, with their mailing list, you are using their resources (server, bandwidth) without permission for your benefit, so I think they have a right to ask for reimbursement. With your post, you are using Slashdot's resources, so you don't really have a right to ask reimbursement.
Even longer than 5 years ago.. Microsoft has a tendency to release products with the version one year later than the actual date.
Re:Why is he reinventing the wheel?
on
Open Source TV
·
· Score: 2
Apple doesn't want to make a player for Linux/BSD because Apple doesn't NEED to, and it would probably hurt them in the long run. With Windows, Apple ported the player in an effort to get the QuickTime format to become a standard among Windows users. More users = more content providers.
What does Apple get by porting their player to Linux or BSD? They don't get much in terms of additional users (since many of those using Linux also use Windows), and they give people that much less reason to switch to a Mac. What does open-sourcing the player do for Apple? It means now any platform can potentially run QuickTime players. The only reason Apple ported the player to Windows was to increase the installed userbase to a point where many content providers would see QuickTime as a viable format to publish in.
Apple won't be releasing players for other platforms other than Windows and Mac, and frankly, it's in their best interest that they don't. If you really have to play QuickTime content under Linux, you could always look into the Crossover Plugin.
First off, you are comparing two things not of similar function. Second, a lot of Word's functionality is also included in shared DLLs- that same winword.exe file won't run if you shove it on a bare machine. Third, you can rebuild the kernel to be as large or as small as you want (functionality-wise, which also affects kernel size). Red Hat's kernel is not the 'official' kernel, so it is misleading to say that the Linux kernel is now larger than the Microsoft Word executable.
I doubt very much that anyone porting a Windows app to MacOS would add a menu to their main window (mainly because it's probably quite hard),
They have. Some companies don't feel like re-doing their interface twice, so they have kind of a weird hybrid interface that will work on both platforms, but isn't really standard to either. I have used more than one app that used a menubar in a main window. It wasn't fun.
Also, remember that Apple isn't a single entity. There are software engineers, UI designers, UI creators, etc. The people who wrote the document are probably not the people who sat down and designed the iTunes/iWhatever interfaces. It seems hypocritical of them to preach one thing and do another until you realize that. Then it's just bad UI design.:)
Mac OS X version 10.2 provides developers with a new "textured" window appearance (see Figure 5-4). This window style has been designed specifically for use by--and is therefore best suited to--applications that provide an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals, such as the Address Book application.
This appearance may also be appropriate for applications that strive to re-create a familiar physical device--the Calculator application, for example.
So for the address book, you could either argue a PDA, or the physical counterparts of a real address book and wall calendar.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but Carbon is most certainly a stopgap measure, while Cocoa is more a long-term solution. From Apple's pages:
Carbon is designed to provide a gentle migration path for developers transitioning from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
---
Cocoa provides developers starting new Mac OS X-only projects the fastest way to full-featured implementations
So why is Apple moving from Carbon (which is heavily dependant on Motorola/IBM's chips) to Cocoa (which is very platform-independant)?
If I were a moderator, I would give this story -1, Flamebait.
Seriously, that's like posting a story that says "WILL PROGRAMMERS SOON BE OUT OF WORK?? READ ON TO FIND OUT!"
In case you didn't know, you can see all the latest stuff Google is working on here.
Check it out.
Microsoft's palladium faq [microsoft.com] states that you can still run old non trusted apps but admits linux can not run due ot legal rather then technical reasons.
Maybe you should read your own links.. From the link you provided:
Q: Can Linux, FreeBSD or another open source OS run on "Palladium" hardware?
A: Virtually anything that runs on a Windows-based machine today will still run on a "Palladium" machine (there are some esoteric exceptions[1]). If you currently have a machine that runs both Linux and Windows, you would be able to have that same functionality on a "Palladium" machine.
What the FAQ does say is that it would be hard to create a similar trust architecture under Linux, due to patents and other legal reasons. Which is something I don't think most Linux users are gonna be missing anyway.
Dude, what are you doing to your poor wallet? Mine smells fine.. and it's pretty old. Then again, it's not leather, so maybe that influences it?
Yeah.. this is a first for McDonalds.. they have never paid for product placement in games.. no siree..
The loop de loop, not the wall. ;)
That actually sounds pretty fun. :D
Hat's off to you for making that point.
Wouldn't this put your private key at risk to all sorts of unscrupulous programs?
Nice troll attempt, but the difference between yours and theirs is with their policy, you have a chance to read the policy before you decide whether to spam the list or not. Wirh your policy, you don't have a choice (the 'reading the post' fee). Also, with their mailing list, you are using their resources (server, bandwidth) without permission for your benefit, so I think they have a right to ask for reimbursement. With your post, you are using Slashdot's resources, so you don't really have a right to ask reimbursement.
I guess it's about time we protected 'the boys.'
:P Kind of silly to assume everyone here is a guy.
Unless, of course, you are female.
Even longer than 5 years ago.. Microsoft has a tendency to release products with the version one year later than the actual date.
Apple doesn't want to make a player for Linux/BSD because Apple doesn't NEED to, and it would probably hurt them in the long run. With Windows, Apple ported the player in an effort to get the QuickTime format to become a standard among Windows users. More users = more content providers.
What does Apple get by porting their player to Linux or BSD? They don't get much in terms of additional users (since many of those using Linux also use Windows), and they give people that much less reason to switch to a Mac. What does open-sourcing the player do for Apple? It means now any platform can potentially run QuickTime players. The only reason Apple ported the player to Windows was to increase the installed userbase to a point where many content providers would see QuickTime as a viable format to publish in.
Apple won't be releasing players for other platforms other than Windows and Mac, and frankly, it's in their best interest that they don't. If you really have to play QuickTime content under Linux, you could always look into the Crossover Plugin.
Wouldn't this be more appropriately labelled Free TV, or Open Content TV, as opposed to Open Source TV?
Parent's parent's post has been close captioned for the humor impaired.
Score of 0? 0?
-1, maybe.
Sheesh.
First off, you are comparing two things not of similar function. Second, a lot of Word's functionality is also included in shared DLLs- that same winword.exe file won't run if you shove it on a bare machine. Third, you can rebuild the kernel to be as large or as small as you want (functionality-wise, which also affects kernel size). Red Hat's kernel is not the 'official' kernel, so it is misleading to say that the Linux kernel is now larger than the Microsoft Word executable.
Robots. Giant Robots.
YesIwould.
Linux obviously needs some DRM kernel modules to catch up with Windows.
I doubt very much that anyone porting a Windows app to MacOS would add a menu to their main window (mainly because it's probably quite hard),
:)
They have. Some companies don't feel like re-doing their interface twice, so they have kind of a weird hybrid interface that will work on both platforms, but isn't really standard to either. I have used more than one app that used a menubar in a main window. It wasn't fun.
Also, remember that Apple isn't a single entity. There are software engineers, UI designers, UI creators, etc. The people who wrote the document are probably not the people who sat down and designed the iTunes/iWhatever interfaces. It seems hypocritical of them to preach one thing and do another until you realize that. Then it's just bad UI design.
From the Aqua HI guidelines:
Mac OS X version 10.2 provides developers with a new "textured" window appearance (see Figure 5-4). This window style has been designed specifically for use by--and is therefore best suited to--applications that provide an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals, such as the Address Book application.
This appearance may also be appropriate for applications that strive to re-create a familiar physical device--the Calculator application, for example.
So for the address book, you could either argue a PDA, or the physical counterparts of a real address book and wall calendar.
WordPerfect is still around, and great as ever. Check it here. Dunno if the link works, its kinda funky.