Yea, totally, and they're also not all $60 =) I got two USB2.0 enclosures that are only slightly larger then the 3.5" drive itslef - it's aluminum and only an inch and a half longer then the drive to fit the cable and USB electronics. It has an external power supply, like yours.
You can get an EIDE/SATA 400GB drive for about $250 now, and the 400GB version of this thing is $560.
$310 is a lot to pay for a drive enclosure and a port hub, even if it does look like the macMini. By the time you've purchased the mini itself, this thing, and assuming you're using it stand-alone - a monitor, keyboard, and mouse.. you might as well buy a BigMac and get a faster + more expandable system.
"You make it sound like fiendish Apple Oompa-Loompas are conspiring to somehow shut KHTML down out of malice. This is not the case. Apple is simply starting to realize what you don't seem to want to realize. WebCore is a fork, and it's diverging from KHTML. Or maybe you do realize it, but just don't like it?"
Fork Shmork. If they were forking it, they should have have been more forking forthcoming. Instead, they make it seem like they're working with the oss community on projects - they release all these changes and everyone think's it's great, but all the changes are useless for anything but WebCore.
This has been known to the KHTML folks for some time now, and all the while there's all these people on Slashdot that don't realize it. It hasn't been a top news story so who knew?
"And the Apple devs have done enough work now that, quite frankly, they need KHTML less and less. It's called forking, and when one team works at a much faster pace than the other, the result is inevitable."
They never called it a fork.
"People percieve this as arrogant on the KDE team's part because, simply put, Apple has a better rendering engine now."
Well, first, besides the newfangled ACiD test smiley face, Konqueror is a very good rendering engine. It renders most pages as good as Firefox, somtimes a little nicer. The font rendering in Konqueror tends to look better on my systems then they do in Firefox/Mozilla.
So, Apple has made all these changes, but the KHTML team hasn't been sitting back doing nothing.
"Quite frankly, the KDE folks' mentality is out-of-style in the Agile Development world."
So, we should just throw in our hats and all write Microsoft-caliber software? We should do away with pride in our work, in getting it done right, in effecient executables because you think it's out-dated?
I think the whole idea that you need to ship, ship, SHIP software is showing it's age. I salute the KHTML team for wanting the code to be clean and effecient and retaining the things that make it good. Small footprint, efficient code.
"Wait, you're implying Apple comes in, does a smash and grab on freely available code, then instead of improving it (which they did), you imply that they slapped a MacOSX front on it, called it their own, then gave you the finger."
Pretty much. In my post, I even specifically said that taking GPL code, renaming it, doing whatever you want was acceptable. Why did you choose to ignore this statement?
I guess the whole "improvement" is subjective. They might have improved the way the thing renders some things but at what cost? According to the KHTML folks, the apple improvements came at too high of a cost. Messy patches and OSX specific code.
"If they did so little, why can't you backport the changes? Could it be, maybe, because they've made significant changes to the library, relying on their own APIs (just as KDE relies on KDE apis)?"
You misquote. Apple didn't have to hack KHTML to bits in order to get it to run in Safari. The code is fairly portable. It relies on QT, not so much KDE. But KDE is free software too, unlike the calls to the closed-source apple API's.
I didn't have unresonable expectations. I expected Apple to behave like decent netcitizens. They should have made their intentions clear from the start (a full fork, see ya KHTML.) If they really intended to work with the KHTML team they could have easily made it work. Other companies do.
It's platform independant in the way that KDE is platform independant - it will run on a variety of hardware platforms, assuming the Operating system is basically Unix with X. It's not so much KDE dependant as it is Unix/X/QT dependant.
KDE is somewhat more portable then OSX, even still.
The goal of KHTML was never to provide the world with a free rendering engine, it was to provide a rendering engine that will work well for their project. They wrote it so it could run on a variety of hardware. Obviously their work in this regard paid off, because Apple was able to take KHTML and integrate it into a completely non-KDE app without much rewriting (most of their initial work was done to improve rendering functions.)
Really, Apple could have been a big contributer to the KHTML project. If they worked with the KDE project team and/or offered to help lead the project - not as an Apple centric project but a KHTML project - things would have been better for everyone. But, they're a corporation, and this is what can happen. Now, Apple will have to maintain an entire browser project moving forward, without any outside assistance.
There's weaknesses in OSS development models and Corporate ones. We're all human. But corporations just tend to be a little bit more cut-throat.
In the end, OSS does work and I don't think this will actually hurt KDE at all. If Apple never came around it wouldn't have made any difference. The KDE project exists to provide a nice desktop environment to free systems, not to compete in the top 10 browser war.
" I don't think there is any real evidence that Safari's WebCore engine is "hacked together" by Apple."
Says you? Just look at all the blogs and postings about it. This isn't a recent thing, it's been going on since the beginning.
"The patches submitted back to KHTML may be harder to integrated more because the changes made to Safari are greater and in a different direction than KHTML."
No - they're purposfully difficult to integrate back into KHTML. The apple patches don't include changelogs, they have too many references to closed-source apple API's and modified QT API's.. they'd fix bugs without consideration on other things it would break (some of which would be things apple didn't use so they simply didn't care.)
"I think there is a bit of arrogance on the KHTML side to not even consider the aspect of WebCore."
Which aspect? And why arrogant? The KDE devs WROTE the damned thing. It's their baby. They're not going to ditch their project for some bastard-child that Apple has created.
"The holier than thou attitude seems very pervasive in the Open Source Community. It's not unlike the Not Invented Here syndrome that many corporations suffer from."
Bullshit! Think about: You're a principal developer in designing a strong HTML renderer. You put a lot of time and effort into it. Along comes some big company that grabs your code, renames it, and puts it into their product publically. They submit some patches. Then, they basically stab you in the back.
This is all perfectly legal and proper in the GPL, and nobody is saying it's not. But it does go against the spirit of Free Software - and against the new Apple Mantra of "OSX is great. Apple is great. They work with OSS and take the best of both worlds. We love OSX. Apple is great."
"Apple is offering up their changes but seem to have said "We've made major improvements that can't easily be patched in to the existing base. We offer the opportunity to use this new code as a basis for the future."
Apple isn't just "offering up" changes. They are required to do so by law. While they've made improvements, to say "they can't easily be patched" is an understatement. Using WebCore for a basis of new KHTML is a joke because you'd basically have to port it from an OSX only app to a platform independant one. Who, in their right mind, would want to do that?
I don't know if that would be the solution, but it's a radical change for the intent of doing good and those things just don't happen. People fear change, in the US. The media and the government have seen to that.
The only radical changes that do happen are those that the fear provoke.
This "everyone" is people that actually work for a living instead of leeching money from mommy and daddy to go to school.
I went to college and I paid for it myself. And I still had enough money left over to save up for a couple months and get that $200 gadget of the time.
I'm sorry if you believe that school is about being flat broke because you won't get a job while attending.
What the fuck is the deal with you fucktards trying to make it look like everyone that has real problems to deal with is fighting a "holy war"? I am a mail administrator for a large company, and I know more about the spam problem then you.
I mean, get off it.
There's more to the spam problem then warding off some porn e-mail. Spam and viruses are becomming less seperated. It costs any sizable company millions of dollars to keep it away and pay for dealing with it. There's legal implications if your users get offensive materials on work systems. People are being scammed over e-mail. The list goes on.
Just because you don't think it's a problem, doesn't mean it isn't. And who cares about your dumb ass unsubstianted quote? It's probably from some rich fuck or a mathmetician. For most companies, money IS the problem. It's why we all go to work in the morning. ALL of us. For money, to make a living.
There might always be noise, but how would you like it if you could only hear 10% of your radio station because the rest was static? And you had to spend $4000 to get the noise down with an expensive filter but the quality was still low? That would be no problem because it's just money...
E-Mail is the main method of communication in use on the Internet, and probably otherwise, in the world. SPAM threatens this system. And it's costing the economy billions of dollars every year - billions that could have been spent on raises, more employees, and new development.
Not to mention, the iTablet if it was so called would not be $200, you'd have to add a zero to the end of that figure. Almost everyone could scrape up $200, or afford to give $200 iPods as gifts. Not so with a $2000 computer.
Sure, new spam filters can be pretty effective. But it takes a lot of resources to deal with spam in terms of hardware and network bandwidth. 75% of all e-mail traffic is SPAM. Millions upon millions a day.
SPAM is a real problem and it's not getting better, it's getting worse. The better we get at blocking it the more spam gets sent to counter this.
Some people might think that if we get good enough at blocking spam, it won't be profitable to send it anymore. I beg to differ. It costs almost nothing to send a million spams. And with all the bot-nets and hijacked mail servers, it's not hard to get them out.
So, because of this very brushed-off response and attitude like he's an authority, I can't take any of his other responses seriously.
I agree. I wonder what would happen if they open sourced the rest of OSX - at least the UI library elements and even just a basic template for the interface? It could be incorporated into the Linux and BSD distributions, and people might start using it.
At that point, if a majority of the OSS apps out there ran natively using the system, I'd seriously consider buying a Mac. Nobody will deny that Macintosh hardware - especially these new nice looking G5 machines - is a superior platform to what is commonly found in x86 land.
I thought Apple made most of their money on the hardware but I guess they want to keep milking the loyal Mac fans of repeated $150 payments for minor upgrades too.
You make it sound like OSX is the key to OO's success, or the success of Open Source completely. It's not.
Linux has been chugging right along happily without any help from OSX. OSX is just a distraction. I mean, it's okay and all, but the entire UI is closed source and that just won't work anymore.
So I'd pipe down and relax. If Apple didn't have this closed source proprietary UI that only Apple uses, OO2 would already be on OSX. Until then, you're stuck in X.
I'll take your post, and show the hidden meaning to the world:
"But at this point, most of the slashdot crowd has their opinions engrained in their minds at this point. Many people might like it, but I'm going to bitch at the few that complain about it. I will write a whole post about how it's old, and dumb, and to come up with something original - all the while I'm being dumb, unoriginal, and old. But since it's "cool" to bitch at Slashdot, we'll see the usual posts shitting on Slashdot."
"But please, spare us the "Slashdot hates everything because of a few loud mounths" or "Slashdot are the sux0rs" comments. We've seen them a million times and they still aren't clever. I should come up with something new, please."
Since when? RIAA seems to have no problem using IP addresses to sue people.
IP addresses are certainly personally identifying. ISP's know who owned what IP when, they log this kind of thing.
Now, google can't really get your name right NOW, but who's to say some ruling won't allow it later on, or make the information easily obtainable.
Not to mention, many of us retain our IP's for quite awhile, and I could see a company like Google not only offering users a PageRank system, but a UserRank system for web masters.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why you brought up the lense thing - nobody really said it had to be as small as a little tiny webcam.
Yea, totally, and they're also not all $60 =) I got two USB2.0 enclosures that are only slightly larger then the 3.5" drive itslef - it's aluminum and only an inch and a half longer then the drive to fit the cable and USB electronics. It has an external power supply, like yours.
They're pretty nice looking, too! $30 each.
"The only thing that would stop them is the Bios and the Xbox OS."
Only?
You can get an EIDE/SATA 400GB drive for about $250 now, and the 400GB version of this thing is $560.
$310 is a lot to pay for a drive enclosure and a port hub, even if it does look like the macMini. By the time you've purchased the mini itself, this thing, and assuming you're using it stand-alone - a monitor, keyboard, and mouse.. you might as well buy a BigMac and get a faster + more expandable system.
I bet those little suckers can generate some heat!
I don't give a shit if you read it or not. I don't post here for rejects like you that can't figure out a post if it's not properly formatted HTML.
You're the only one to mention it in the last three years of posting to slashdot.
Like I'd take advice from an AC.
Maybe I don't want to get into HTML codes on my fucking palmtop.
"You make it sound like fiendish Apple Oompa-Loompas are conspiring to somehow shut KHTML down out of malice. This is not the case. Apple is simply starting to realize what you don't seem to want to realize. WebCore is a fork, and it's diverging from KHTML. Or maybe you do realize it, but just don't like it?"
Fork Shmork. If they were forking it, they should have have been more forking forthcoming. Instead, they make it seem like they're working with the oss community on projects - they release all these changes and everyone think's it's great, but all the changes are useless for anything but WebCore.
This has been known to the KHTML folks for some time now, and all the while there's all these people on Slashdot that don't realize it. It hasn't been a top news story so who knew?
"And the Apple devs have done enough work now that, quite frankly, they need KHTML less and less. It's called forking, and when one team works at a much faster pace than the other, the result is inevitable."
They never called it a fork.
"People percieve this as arrogant on the KDE team's part because, simply put, Apple has a better rendering engine now."
Well, first, besides the newfangled ACiD test smiley face, Konqueror is a very good rendering engine. It renders most pages as good as Firefox, somtimes a little nicer. The font rendering in Konqueror tends to look better on my systems then they do in Firefox/Mozilla.
So, Apple has made all these changes, but the KHTML team hasn't been sitting back doing nothing.
"Quite frankly, the KDE folks' mentality is out-of-style in the Agile Development world."
So, we should just throw in our hats and all write Microsoft-caliber software? We should do away with pride in our work, in getting it done right, in effecient executables because you think it's out-dated?
I think the whole idea that you need to ship, ship, SHIP software is showing it's age. I salute the KHTML team for wanting the code to be clean and effecient and retaining the things that make it good. Small footprint, efficient code.
"Wait, you're implying Apple comes in, does a smash and grab on freely available code, then instead of improving it (which they did), you imply that they slapped a MacOSX front on it, called it their own, then gave you the finger."
Pretty much. In my post, I even specifically said that taking GPL code, renaming it, doing whatever you want was acceptable. Why did you choose to ignore this statement?
I guess the whole "improvement" is subjective. They might have improved the way the thing renders some things but at what cost? According to the KHTML folks, the apple improvements came at too high of a cost. Messy patches and OSX specific code.
"If they did so little, why can't you backport the changes? Could it be, maybe, because they've made significant changes to the library, relying on their own APIs (just as KDE relies on KDE apis)?"
You misquote. Apple didn't have to hack KHTML to bits in order to get it to run in Safari. The code is fairly portable. It relies on QT, not so much KDE. But KDE is free software too, unlike the calls to the closed-source apple API's.
I didn't have unresonable expectations. I expected Apple to behave like decent netcitizens. They should have made their intentions clear from the start (a full fork, see ya KHTML.) If they really intended to work with the KHTML team they could have easily made it work. Other companies do.
Ohh sweet, thanks for the info! I don't follow Firefox development too much; only maintenence on current releases.
It's platform independant in the way that KDE is platform independant - it will run on a variety of hardware platforms, assuming the Operating system is basically Unix with X. It's not so much KDE dependant as it is Unix/X/QT dependant.
KDE is somewhat more portable then OSX, even still.
The goal of KHTML was never to provide the world with a free rendering engine, it was to provide a rendering engine that will work well for their project. They wrote it so it could run on a variety of hardware. Obviously their work in this regard paid off, because Apple was able to take KHTML and integrate it into a completely non-KDE app without much rewriting (most of their initial work was done to improve rendering functions.)
Really, Apple could have been a big contributer to the KHTML project. If they worked with the KDE project team and/or offered to help lead the project - not as an Apple centric project but a KHTML project - things would have been better for everyone. But, they're a corporation, and this is what can happen. Now, Apple will have to maintain an entire browser project moving forward, without any outside assistance.
There's weaknesses in OSS development models and Corporate ones. We're all human. But corporations just tend to be a little bit more cut-throat.
In the end, OSS does work and I don't think this will actually hurt KDE at all. If Apple never came around it wouldn't have made any difference. The KDE project exists to provide a nice desktop environment to free systems, not to compete in the top 10 browser war.
" I don't think there is any real evidence that Safari's WebCore engine is "hacked together" by Apple."
Says you? Just look at all the blogs and postings about it. This isn't a recent thing, it's been going on since the beginning.
"The patches submitted back to KHTML may be harder to integrated more because the changes made to Safari are greater and in a different direction than KHTML."
No - they're purposfully difficult to integrate back into KHTML. The apple patches don't include changelogs, they have too many references to closed-source apple API's and modified QT API's.. they'd fix bugs without consideration on other things it would break (some of which would be things apple didn't use so they simply didn't care.)
"I think there is a bit of arrogance on the KHTML side to not even consider the aspect of WebCore."
Which aspect? And why arrogant? The KDE devs WROTE the damned thing. It's their baby. They're not going to ditch their project for some bastard-child that Apple has created.
"The holier than thou attitude seems very pervasive in the Open Source Community. It's not unlike the Not Invented Here syndrome that many corporations suffer from."
Bullshit! Think about: You're a principal developer in designing a strong HTML renderer. You put a lot of time and effort into it. Along comes some big company that grabs your code, renames it, and puts it into their product publically. They submit some patches. Then, they basically stab you in the back.
This is all perfectly legal and proper in the GPL, and nobody is saying it's not. But it does go against the spirit of Free Software - and against the new Apple Mantra of "OSX is great. Apple is great. They work with OSS and take the best of both worlds. We love OSX. Apple is great."
"Apple is offering up their changes but seem to have said "We've made major improvements that can't easily be patched in to the existing base. We offer the opportunity to use this new code as a basis for the future."
Apple isn't just "offering up" changes. They are required to do so by law. While they've made improvements, to say "they can't easily be patched" is an understatement. Using WebCore for a basis of new KHTML is a joke because you'd basically have to port it from an OSX only app to a platform independant one. Who, in their right mind, would want to do that?
They get firefox bugs addressed pretty fast, I just wish they had updates instead of full downloads every time. A patch would probably be very small.
I don't know if that would be the solution, but it's a radical change for the intent of doing good and those things just don't happen. People fear change, in the US. The media and the government have seen to that.
The only radical changes that do happen are those that the fear provoke.
Such a fine post wasted in reply to that tard. I agree with you completely.
This "everyone" is people that actually work for a living instead of leeching money from mommy and daddy to go to school.
I went to college and I paid for it myself. And I still had enough money left over to save up for a couple months and get that $200 gadget of the time.
I'm sorry if you believe that school is about being flat broke because you won't get a job while attending.
Wow.
What the fuck is the deal with you fucktards trying to make it look like everyone that has real problems to deal with is fighting a "holy war"? I am a mail administrator for a large company, and I know more about the spam problem then you.
I mean, get off it.
There's more to the spam problem then warding off some porn e-mail. Spam and viruses are becomming less seperated. It costs any sizable company millions of dollars to keep it away and pay for dealing with it. There's legal implications if your users get offensive materials on work systems. People are being scammed over e-mail. The list goes on.
Just because you don't think it's a problem, doesn't mean it isn't. And who cares about your dumb ass unsubstianted quote? It's probably from some rich fuck or a mathmetician. For most companies, money IS the problem. It's why we all go to work in the morning. ALL of us. For money, to make a living.
There might always be noise, but how would you like it if you could only hear 10% of your radio station because the rest was static? And you had to spend $4000 to get the noise down with an expensive filter but the quality was still low? That would be no problem because it's just money...
E-Mail is the main method of communication in use on the Internet, and probably otherwise, in the world. SPAM threatens this system. And it's costing the economy billions of dollars every year - billions that could have been spent on raises, more employees, and new development.
Not to mention, the iTablet if it was so called would not be $200, you'd have to add a zero to the end of that figure. Almost everyone could scrape up $200, or afford to give $200 iPods as gifts. Not so with a $2000 computer.
This guy obviously doesn't run any mail servers.
Sure, new spam filters can be pretty effective. But it takes a lot of resources to deal with spam in terms of hardware and network bandwidth. 75% of all e-mail traffic is SPAM. Millions upon millions a day.
SPAM is a real problem and it's not getting better, it's getting worse. The better we get at blocking it the more spam gets sent to counter this.
Some people might think that if we get good enough at blocking spam, it won't be profitable to send it anymore. I beg to differ. It costs almost nothing to send a million spams. And with all the bot-nets and hijacked mail servers, it's not hard to get them out.
So, because of this very brushed-off response and attitude like he's an authority, I can't take any of his other responses seriously.
Sure, when you say "You moron, you didn't even read TFA!!"
But I wouldn't say to my mom "ohh hey did you read the fucking article in the times today about that guy?"
Why did you use "From TFA, " instead of just "From the article" or "From TA" or something?
You do know the F stands for Fuck?
You started out okay, but then you said "From The Fucking Article, " is that really necessary?
Ya'll should think about what your acronyms stand for before using them everywhere.
$400 to manufacture. Expect the price to be at least 6 times that.
I agree. I wonder what would happen if they open sourced the rest of OSX - at least the UI library elements and even just a basic template for the interface? It could be incorporated into the Linux and BSD distributions, and people might start using it.
At that point, if a majority of the OSS apps out there ran natively using the system, I'd seriously consider buying a Mac. Nobody will deny that Macintosh hardware - especially these new nice looking G5 machines - is a superior platform to what is commonly found in x86 land.
I thought Apple made most of their money on the hardware but I guess they want to keep milking the loyal Mac fans of repeated $150 payments for minor upgrades too.
You make it sound like OSX is the key to OO's success, or the success of Open Source completely. It's not.
Linux has been chugging right along happily without any help from OSX. OSX is just a distraction. I mean, it's okay and all, but the entire UI is closed source and that just won't work anymore.
So I'd pipe down and relax. If Apple didn't have this closed source proprietary UI that only Apple uses, OO2 would already be on OSX. Until then, you're stuck in X.
I'll take your post, and show the hidden meaning to the world:
"But at this point, most of the slashdot crowd has their opinions engrained in their minds at this point. Many people might like it, but I'm going to bitch at the few that complain about it. I will write a whole post about how it's old, and dumb, and to come up with something original - all the while I'm being dumb, unoriginal, and old. But since it's "cool" to bitch at Slashdot, we'll see the usual posts shitting on Slashdot."
"But please, spare us the "Slashdot hates everything because of a few loud mounths" or "Slashdot are the sux0rs" comments. We've seen them a million times and they still aren't clever. I should come up with something new, please."
Ah hah!
Since when? RIAA seems to have no problem using IP addresses to sue people.
IP addresses are certainly personally identifying. ISP's know who owned what IP when, they log this kind of thing.
Now, google can't really get your name right NOW, but who's to say some ruling won't allow it later on, or make the information easily obtainable.
Not to mention, many of us retain our IP's for quite awhile, and I could see a company like Google not only offering users a PageRank system, but a UserRank system for web masters.