installing linux on hardware that's on the HCL is trivial and takes half the time of Windows
You are ON CRACK if you think that installing Linux is trivial. Given the inconsistent, poorly worded, in some cases confusing text presented during Linux distro installs I'll take the XP cd any day of the week.
Same comment applies to install time... if you choose a minimal install, it takes very little time to install -- however, you have to take the time and frigging deselect everything that is preselected for you, and then go through the million dialogs saying "xyz depends on this library" and turn a bunch of things back on.
Running it, well - it runs itself (especially for a file server, we're not talking about a fancy application server here).
If you take this view on any server, it WILL get owned eventually.
First of all, Linux and the *BSDs all write their own drivers, so to speak. If Microsoft can't do that, maybe they should change their business model, or get into another line of work. We do it free, while MS can't do it even though they're paid to? That's lame, to put the best possible face on it.
Linux/BSD write their own drivers out of necessity, not by choice. The whole point is to get 3rd parties to write drivers for their own hardware. To put the "best possible face" on it, 3rd party driver support in linux for all popular hardware is just about every Linux geeks wet dream. There are so many stupid things about depending on someone else other than yourself to support your hardware it isn't even funny (from both a common sense and business perspective).
Second, if MS is going to rely entirely on third-party drivers, they need to ensure that bad drivers can't bugger the entire system.
They do. They've got a whole driver cerfitication process. They warn you before you install an uncertified driver telling you that it may affect the stability of your system.
What else are they supposed to do?
A driver has to hit the hardware. It can do so in such a way that it fucks up the state of the computer. There isn't a damn thing that anybody in the world can do to prevent that.
The rules in Thunderbird work fine. And reliably. I've never seen an error, at least not with 0.7 or 0.8.
I never got an error. Though I'd randomly encounter messages that wouldn't "filter". I do spam filtering with a pop3 proxy, and it tags the subject with [spam] if it is flagged as spam. At least once a week I had to manually delete all of the spam out of the inbox.
Even when I did use POP and remember the compression, the threshold was a setting in preferences. They *did* choose an annoyingly low one, but you could easily turn it off. Or set it to 10mb.
I don't remember ever seeing/modifying such a setting. Regardless, the UI for that and the way it "locked" the application was piss poor.
I've found stability greatly improved with 0.6 and 0.7. 0.8 feels quite solid and adds in all the fun import stuff that people expect.
Oddly enough, I never had a problem with stability. Just a poor user experience.
No. That's the way I use email. Why would I want an inbox with thousands of messages I've already responded to? That's what folders are for! If you've got a huge inbox, you'll have problems in many email programs.
Ask Google... they seem to think the "put everything in one place and search for it when you need it" interface isn't a bad idea. Manually sorting mail is error prone, time consuming, cumbersome, and makes it hard to find something when you need it. The "rules" Thunderbird provides are very limited and don't work reliably. If it works for you, great, but it's a pita to me.
As to compressing folders... I do that *MAYBE* once every couple months to keep file sizes down and because I have an external parser for the mbox files for a specific client's analysis.
Sure, maybe YOU only do it once every couple months, but it NAGS you constantly until you do it... hit enter by accident once and bam, you're stuck waiting for it to finish.
Did you try the latest version of Thunderbird with a fresh profile? No? Didn't think so.
Of course not, why would I bother? I already went through the trouble of switching to it once, gave it a few months, and got so pissed off at it that I switched to something else. Given that I don't have any problems with what I'm using now, what reason would I have to switch back to something that I didn't like the first time around?
So you like having to wait an hour for it to "compress" your mailbox before you can check your email? You also like all of the naggy dialog boxes (hey, let's compress your inbox...let's compress your inbox...I'm a clippy wanabe, let's compress your inbox...). Or the bugs in the editor which mess with the carriage returns and hide lines you've entered? The ineffective spam filter (they claim it is trainable, but I don't believe it)? The slow downloading of messages from multiple accounts? The slow/buggy search function? The inability to batch export mail in any kind of useable format?
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
If that is so, then Apple Computer is walking a fine line (with part of the "system" they're selling involving hardware, and Apple selling music intended to be placed on that hardware or eventually recorded on some sort of cd media that their software also generates) that they'd probably get away with.
At which point Apple Corp will file a trademark suit like they did in 1981 and probably win.
Re:Your urls don't go to iTMS. Why??
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
There's another post somewhere in this discussion that points out that Disney doesn't have a trademark on all cartoon mice. Likewise, Apple Corps doesn't have a trademark on all representations of apples.
Anyway, I hope you can see that it is not completely clear cut, and can be argued either way.
Yes, it isn't clear cut, and yes it can be argued either way. Unfortunately, the two times it has been argued Apple Computer didn't exactly end up on the green side of the fence. Apple Corps trademark hasn't changed, nor has Apple Computer's use of the Apple logo.
At any rate, if you mean that Apple will be forced to settle a third time, you're probably right
Yes, this is what I meant. I doubt Apple Computer would have settled for the amounts they've settled for if they thought they'd have won in court. I could be wrong -- Apple Computer may just like to hand out millions of dollars to their favorite record company -- but I doubt it.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry you felt that I was exaggerating/coloring my evidence.
When looking at the out of court settlements, they were (in my opinion) drastically in Apple Corps favor. When one company settles and pays another money, it implies to me that the company paying money didn't think they could win in court; to me, this is a win. It isn't a court win, but it doesn't have to happen court for it to be a win.
The terms of the settlement in 1981 were never fully disclosed, but the cash payment was estimated between $50 and $200 million. Their income in 1981 roughly $300 million. That works out between 16-66% of their income for the year. To me, this looks like a huge win for Apple Corp.
In 1989 Apple Computer got sued because 3rd party software companies were making MIDI software for Apple computer. Even with such a weak sauce cause like that, Apple settled for something like $26 million and signed a contract which they are being sued for violating today. The fact that Apple Computer settled on what would appear to be such a weak case for Apple Corp and signed an agreement restricting directions that Apple Computer could go in the future. Without the contract, I would dismiss the settlement as Apple just paying off the lawyers, but with it... again, looks like the settlement was definately in Apple Corps favor (and designed to address Apple Corps fears more so than to give them a wad of cash to go away); I'd chalk this up in the Win column for them again.
You, of course, are welcome to view this however you like.
One of the other things being lost in all of this is that the case is being brought in a UK court. Not sure if that really matters a whole lot, but I can't imagine that it's a good thing for Apple Computer (seeing how they tried to get the jurisdiction moved to the states).
Even if Apple Corps loses the contract case, I would have trouble imagining them losing the trademark case which would surely follow...
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
I was also using the quote to demonstrate the Apple Corp seems really confident about their case. Given that the other two cases they've brought to court on this issue ended with them winning big time, and given that they haven't made an SCOish habbit of suing anything that moves, I doubt the lawsuit is baseless.
Re:Your urls don't go to iTMS. Why??
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how many times that this will need to be repeated to sink in, but the URLs you gave do not lead to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). They lead to a section of the apple site for marketing iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. iTMS is only accessible through the iTunes application itself. An ordinary browser won't do it.
Apple is marketing and branding a Music service with the Apple logo. Doesn't matter if the site you actually purchase is only accessable via a non web application.
Furthermore, unless you've read the contracts and have extensive knowledge of contract law, you cannot positively state that Apple is in breach. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Have you read the contract at this time? Would you know how to interpret it if you did?
Nope, I can't. You can't say they aren't either. All we can do is speculate based on publicly available information. However, Apple Corp is pretty sure that Apple Computer is in violation. So far they're 2 for 2; I'd be willing to bet they'll walk away 3 for 3 when it's all over.
Re:It's not the music store, it's the contract
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Except the apple trademark is all over the site (look at the domain name and the page title).
Except in your example, "Widget" music company sues "Widget" computer at year zero and walks away with an agreement that "Widget" computer company can't do anything related to music. Then a few years later, when "Widget" computer company comes out with a computer that plays music, "Widget" music company sues and walks away with a wad of cash and an agreement that "Widget" computer company can't enter the music business. Now, "Widget" computer company enters the music business, and gets sued by "Widget" music.
Who the hell wouldn't see this coming?
Even if your example was an accurate representation of the events which have transpired (which they aren't), "Widget" music would be perfectly within their rights to sue "Widget" computer for trademark infringement the instant they wandered into the music arena.
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
They're officially call Apple Corps Ltd.
Best link I can find: http://www.applecorps.com
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
Riight... that must be why they're getting sued for breach of contract, because they didn't breach their contract...
"When it first happened with the iPod, we said, "What could they be thinking?" said a Beatles legal insider, who agreed that posters announcing the iPod from "AppleMusic" were among the most egregious violations. "They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
A call by this column to Apple Computers' legal counsel, Nancy Heinen, was refused this afternoon. But my Beatles source said, "It's OK with us if they want to go this route. It's just more money for us."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.htm l
Re:Has Apple avoided this problem?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Except they've registered domains like http://applemusic.com, and the site shows up under http://www.apple.com/itunes/... and if that isn't an effective enough demonstration for you, do an Apple Music search on google and see where you land -- "apple music" is associated with iTunes enough to be the first hit.
Aside from the obvious trademark infringements, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple Computer signed agreements with Apple Corp last time this happened, stating that Apple Computer would not enter the music business. End of story. Apple Computer is in breach of contract.
Calling it a wrapper really underestimates what it does. It essentially transforms UI programming on windows from a painful contorted nightmare to something enjoyable. The implementation under the hood does indeed call Win32 methods, but calling it a wrapper implies a simple 1:1 correlation between what Win32 does and objects/method calls in the forms library (which is not true).
However, I suspect that line of thought comes from a lack of understanding of how little Win32 really does...
You thought wrong. Taken at the most basic definition, they're the same thing -- at the core they're all making calls to Win32. The difference is in the design and implementation..Net forms are lightyears better using than MFC.
Slashdot Mirror
installing linux on hardware that's on the HCL is trivial and takes half the time of Windows
... if you choose a minimal install, it takes very little time to install -- however, you have to take the time and frigging deselect everything that is preselected for you, and then go through the million dialogs saying "xyz depends on this library" and turn a bunch of things back on.
You are ON CRACK if you think that installing Linux is trivial. Given the inconsistent, poorly worded, in some cases confusing text presented during Linux distro installs I'll take the XP cd any day of the week.
Same comment applies to install time
Running it, well - it runs itself (especially for a file server, we're not talking about a fancy application server here).
If you take this view on any server, it WILL get owned eventually.
The "road surface" is the tv broadcast. Multiple codecs would be the types of tires you could fit on your car...
First of all, Linux and the *BSDs all write their own drivers, so to speak. If Microsoft can't do that, maybe they should change their business model, or get into another line of work. We do it free, while MS can't do it even though they're paid to? That's lame, to put the best possible face on it.
Linux/BSD write their own drivers out of necessity, not by choice. The whole point is to get 3rd parties to write drivers for their own hardware. To put the "best possible face" on it, 3rd party driver support in linux for all popular hardware is just about every Linux geeks wet dream. There are so many stupid things about depending on someone else other than yourself to support your hardware it isn't even funny (from both a common sense and business perspective).
Second, if MS is going to rely entirely on third-party drivers, they need to ensure that bad drivers can't bugger the entire system.
They do. They've got a whole driver cerfitication process. They warn you before you install an uncertified driver telling you that it may affect the stability of your system.
What else are they supposed to do?
A driver has to hit the hardware. It can do so in such a way that it fucks up the state of the computer. There isn't a damn thing that anybody in the world can do to prevent that.
The rules in Thunderbird work fine. And reliably. I've never seen an error, at least not with 0.7 or 0.8.
I never got an error. Though I'd randomly encounter messages that wouldn't "filter". I do spam filtering with a pop3 proxy, and it tags the subject with [spam] if it is flagged as spam. At least once a week I had to manually delete all of the spam out of the inbox.
Even when I did use POP and remember the compression, the threshold was a setting in preferences. They *did* choose an annoyingly low one, but you could easily turn it off. Or set it to 10mb.
I don't remember ever seeing/modifying such a setting. Regardless, the UI for that and the way it "locked" the application was piss poor.
I've found stability greatly improved with 0.6 and 0.7. 0.8 feels quite solid and adds in all the fun import stuff that people expect.
Oddly enough, I never had a problem with stability. Just a poor user experience.
No. That's the way I use email. Why would I want an inbox with thousands of messages I've already responded to? That's what folders are for! If you've got a huge inbox, you'll have problems in many email programs.
... they seem to think the "put everything in one place and search for it when you need it" interface isn't a bad idea. Manually sorting mail is error prone, time consuming, cumbersome, and makes it hard to find something when you need it. The "rules" Thunderbird provides are very limited and don't work reliably. If it works for you, great, but it's a pita to me.
... hit enter by accident once and bam, you're stuck waiting for it to finish.
Ask Google
As to compressing folders... I do that *MAYBE* once every couple months to keep file sizes down and because I have an external parser for the mbox files for a specific client's analysis.
Sure, maybe YOU only do it once every couple months, but it NAGS you constantly until you do it
Did you try the latest version of Thunderbird with a fresh profile? No? Didn't think so.
Of course not, why would I bother? I already went through the trouble of switching to it once, gave it a few months, and got so pissed off at it that I switched to something else. Given that I don't have any problems with what I'm using now, what reason would I have to switch back to something that I didn't like the first time around?
We've found a bug in firefox, we're really sorry. Anyone using old versions of firefox will be affected./I.
That is, unless they decide to sit on it for a few years debating if they should fix it...
So basically your response is "works on my machine" or "I've adapted the way I use mail software to avoid the problems you speak of."
*rolls eyes*
...and American cars are being in Mexico now. Which is probably why American car manufacturers are still getting their asses kicked...
So you like having to wait an hour for it to "compress" your mailbox before you can check your email? You also like all of the naggy dialog boxes (hey, let's compress your inbox...let's compress your inbox...I'm a clippy wanabe, let's compress your inbox...). Or the bugs in the editor which mess with the carriage returns and hide lines you've entered? The ineffective spam filter (they claim it is trainable, but I don't believe it)? The slow downloading of messages from multiple accounts? The slow/buggy search function? The inability to batch export mail in any kind of useable format?
Do I really need to go on?
Relativity makes your head hurt, doesn't it? :p
If that is so, then Apple Computer is walking a fine line (with part of the "system" they're selling involving hardware, and Apple selling music intended to be placed on that hardware or eventually recorded on some sort of cd media that their software also generates) that they'd probably get away with.
At which point Apple Corp will file a trademark suit like they did in 1981 and probably win.
There's another post somewhere in this discussion that points out that Disney doesn't have a trademark on all cartoon mice. Likewise, Apple Corps doesn't have a trademark on all representations of apples.
Anyway, I hope you can see that it is not completely clear cut, and can be argued either way.
Yes, it isn't clear cut, and yes it can be argued either way. Unfortunately, the two times it has been argued Apple Computer didn't exactly end up on the green side of the fence. Apple Corps trademark hasn't changed, nor has Apple Computer's use of the Apple logo.
At any rate, if you mean that Apple will be forced to settle a third time, you're probably right
Yes, this is what I meant. I doubt Apple Computer would have settled for the amounts they've settled for if they thought they'd have won in court. I could be wrong -- Apple Computer may just like to hand out millions of dollars to their favorite record company -- but I doubt it.
I'm sorry you felt that I was exaggerating/coloring my evidence.
... again, looks like the settlement was definately in Apple Corps favor (and designed to address Apple Corps fears more so than to give them a wad of cash to go away); I'd chalk this up in the Win column for them again.
When looking at the out of court settlements, they were (in my opinion) drastically in Apple Corps favor. When one company settles and pays another money, it implies to me that the company paying money didn't think they could win in court; to me, this is a win. It isn't a court win, but it doesn't have to happen court for it to be a win.
The terms of the settlement in 1981 were never fully disclosed, but the cash payment was estimated between $50 and $200 million. Their income in 1981 roughly $300 million. That works out between 16-66% of their income for the year. To me, this looks like a huge win for Apple Corp.
In 1989 Apple Computer got sued because 3rd party software companies were making MIDI software for Apple computer. Even with such a weak sauce cause like that, Apple settled for something like $26 million and signed a contract which they are being sued for violating today. The fact that Apple Computer settled on what would appear to be such a weak case for Apple Corp and signed an agreement restricting directions that Apple Computer could go in the future. Without the contract, I would dismiss the settlement as Apple just paying off the lawyers, but with it
You, of course, are welcome to view this however you like.
One of the other things being lost in all of this is that the case is being brought in a UK court. Not sure if that really matters a whole lot, but I can't imagine that it's a good thing for Apple Computer (seeing how they tried to get the jurisdiction moved to the states).
Even if Apple Corps loses the contract case, I would have trouble imagining them losing the trademark case which would surely follow...
I was also using the quote to demonstrate the Apple Corp seems really confident about their case. Given that the other two cases they've brought to court on this issue ended with them winning big time, and given that they haven't made an SCOish habbit of suing anything that moves, I doubt the lawsuit is baseless.
I'm not sure how many times that this will need to be repeated to sink in, but the URLs you gave do not lead to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). They lead to a section of the apple site for marketing iPod, iTunes, and iTMS. iTMS is only accessible through the iTunes application itself. An ordinary browser won't do it.
Apple is marketing and branding a Music service with the Apple logo. Doesn't matter if the site you actually purchase is only accessable via a non web application.
Furthermore, unless you've read the contracts and have extensive knowledge of contract law, you cannot positively state that Apple is in breach. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Have you read the contract at this time? Would you know how to interpret it if you did?
Nope, I can't. You can't say they aren't either. All we can do is speculate based on publicly available information. However, Apple Corp is pretty sure that Apple Computer is in violation. So far they're 2 for 2; I'd be willing to bet they'll walk away 3 for 3 when it's all over.
Except the apple trademark is all over the site (look at the domain name and the page title).
Except in your example, "Widget" music company sues "Widget" computer at year zero and walks away with an agreement that "Widget" computer company can't do anything related to music. Then a few years later, when "Widget" computer company comes out with a computer that plays music, "Widget" music company sues and walks away with a wad of cash and an agreement that "Widget" computer company can't enter the music business. Now, "Widget" computer company enters the music business, and gets sued by "Widget" music.
Who the hell wouldn't see this coming?
Even if your example was an accurate representation of the events which have transpired (which they aren't), "Widget" music would be perfectly within their rights to sue "Widget" computer for trademark infringement the instant they wandered into the music arena.
They're officially call Apple Corps Ltd.
Best link I can find: http://www.applecorps.com
Riight ... that must be why they're getting sued for breach of contract, because they didn't breach their contract...
m l
"When it first happened with the iPod, we said, "What could they be thinking?" said a Beatles legal insider, who agreed that posters announcing the iPod from "AppleMusic" were among the most egregious violations. "They knew we had the agreement, and that we'd won a lot of money from them already."
A call by this column to Apple Computers' legal counsel, Nancy Heinen, was refused this afternoon. But my Beatles source said, "It's OK with us if they want to go this route. It's just more money for us."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.ht
Except they've registered domains like http://applemusic.com, and the site shows up under http://www.apple.com/itunes/ ... and if that isn't an effective enough demonstration for you, do an Apple Music search on google and see where you land -- "apple music" is associated with iTunes enough to be the first hit.
Aside from the obvious trademark infringements, it doesn't matter anyway. Apple Computer signed agreements with Apple Corp last time this happened, stating that Apple Computer would not enter the music business. End of story. Apple Computer is in breach of contract.
Guess that means I won't be replacing any of my av equipment for another 10 years or so ... the silver shit is fugly ...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__/
If you think borland made programming Win32 "easy" you're smoking crack.
Calling it a wrapper really underestimates what it does. It essentially transforms UI programming on windows from a painful contorted nightmare to something enjoyable. The implementation under the hood does indeed call Win32 methods, but calling it a wrapper implies a simple 1:1 correlation between what Win32 does and objects/method calls in the forms library (which is not true).
...
However, I suspect that line of thought comes from a lack of understanding of how little Win32 really does
You thought wrong. Taken at the most basic definition, they're the same thing -- at the core they're all making calls to Win32. The difference is in the design and implementation. .Net forms are lightyears better using than MFC.