There's plenty of good reasons to do that. Cross-platform testing is a major one; say your primary development environment is Linux or Windows, but you want to test on OS X. And when Leopard ships it would also be useful to run a virtualized Tiger under Leopard (or vice versa), to test Mac apps under both versions. And there's always the standard reasons for virtualization to run apps that aren't available on the native OS; Windows or Linux users might want to run Delicious Library or OmniGraffle or other Mac-only apps.
I prefer small economic communites (of no more than 6000 people at the most, preferably more like 500) that are isolationist and defend their borders against foreign imports with large amounts of force.
So like North Korea, but with no economy of scale. Let me know how that works out.
The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice.
That's true, and it's definitely an issue. But some of the double taxation already exists today; when I buy something with my after-tax income, a significant chunk of the payment goes to corporate taxes and other taxes embedded in the purchase price, which would be eliminated under the FairTax. And if I invest the money instead of immediately spending it I end up paying capital gains taxes, which also goes away with the FairTax.
Next: Like all taxes, once imposed it will never go away and will always go up. Sales taxes, being largely hidden, make it much easier for the government to jack the rates.
IIRC the FairTax calls for the tax to be clearly identified on all receipts. Because everybody pays, it would be harder to sneak in tax increases than with income taxes, where you can pretend that only the "rich" will be affected by an increase.
This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system.
Well, you can do that today by inventing extra children for more deductions, and that's just one of the countless ways to cheat on income taxes. And I don't see why we'd need a national ID other than the existing SSN.
The FairTax isn't perfect, but compared to the current mess I'd say it's a clear improvement.
PEOPLE ARE NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE, THAT ALTRUISTIC. MOVE ON.
Thank you. As you note, this is a textbook case of tragedy of the commons, and trying to guilt people into using only what they "need" is not going to work. What would help is taxing the sources of undesirable outcomes such as pollution and carbon, providing a direct incentive to consume less and seek out alternative energy sources.
All they are saying is that we don't want to support running VMs on our most basic OS.
Specifically trying to forbid it in the EULA goes well beyond not supporting it.
As for running VM's, do you think there are home users, aka mom and dad that can barely can tell the difference between OSX and Vista, that really want to run Vista Home in a VM?
Probably not. They probably don't need to run a web server or compiler either, should those also be prohibited?
Copying the software (say, from the installation disc to your hard drive) is illegal except as allowed by that agreement.
See 17 USC 117. The copying that occurs when you install (or run) software is pretty clearly an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
If they say that the cheaper "Home" versions are not allowed to run on VMs, then they have every right to make the user follow suit.
No they don't, unless the user has agreed to a contract to that effect. By any reasonable definition of "contract", EULAs aren't even close.
It's Microsoft's product and the user does not own it.
You do own the copy of the software that you bought, just like you own the copy of a book that you buy. What you don't own is the copyright, which means there are specific things you are forbidden to do. But copyright does not equal absolute control over use, contrary to what Microsoft and the **AAs would have you believe.
Notatall. There's no reason to watch ads on TV other than laziness. And it's inefficient laziness, since the few hours you invest in learning about alternatives will save you far more time in not listening to blathering marketroids.
That way you force people to make more energy-efficient decisions about all products, not just one particular type of light bulb. This is a case where economics can work for you, not against you.
Well said. Unfortunately there are two problems: many "environmentalists" are more interested in controlling people's lives than actually improving the environment, and most aren't fans of capitalism so any plan involving market forces rather than central planning is going to be a hard sell. Of course, complex regulations often cause more problems than they solve; for example SUVs arose because of CAFE standards. The Pigou Club has the right idea: tax the bad stuff directly and you get less of it.
Now turn off your Beowulf cluster of pentium IIs in the basement, junior. Out tax penalty was $500 last month!
If the energy used to power your computers cost $500 in environmental damage, that's exactly what you should pay. Either accept the costs of your actions, or find ways to reduce them.
The people that voluntarily choose to go to an establishment where smoking is allowed? I'm all for banning smoking on public property, and I can usually be persuaded to go along with banning it at workplaces and airplanes and other areas where people effectively have to go. But bars and restaurants are private property and entirely optional, and I see no reason why one group of people should be able to forcibly impose their preferences on the owners.
(Disclaimer: non-smoker, dislikes smoke, dislikes government intrusion even more)
Sure it's easy enough to justify the action of sniping, just like paying some kid for his spot in line to get a playstation
Yes it is, because neither is wrong. In the latter case, both the buyer and the kid are better off as a result of the exchange, and nobody else is affected. In the former case, if a sniper beats you, then he either bid more than you were willing to pay in which case you wouldn't have gotten the item if he bid normally, or he bid less than you were willing to pay, in which case why didn't you bid that much in the first place?
By most standards the guy that sees a kid headed toward the last voltron toy in the store and then runs in front of him to grab it is an asshole.
Yes, he is. But that has no relevance to either of the above scenarios.
US manufacturing output is rising. There are fewer *jobs* in the field, but that's largely because of automation, not foreign competition. China is losing manufacturing jobs too. As productivity rises, fewer workers can produce more. While this is often bad for those who lose their jobs, it's a net benefit to society; consider buggy whip makers, phone operators, secretarial pools, etc.
either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter
Considering the consistent worldwide economic growth in the last several centuries (when not ruined by totalitarian regimes), which today is being accelerated by Moore's Law, the latter seems much more likely to me.
Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires
The US may lose its hyperpower status though any number of causes, but that's independent of whether standards of living rise or fall. The sun now sets on the British Empire, but I'd rather live in London today than in 1907.
No, they are NOT better. They have very serious shortcommings, like memory leaking like a hell (try Firefox on Mac)
From what I've seen Firefox is a memory hog on all platforms. It uses a bunch of Mozilla libraries that are unlikely to be shared, so having them in the.app doesn't hurt.
problem to launch them anyway (no way you can debug them or find how to fix, which library to replace, etc.), and they are very unstable
My experience is exactly the opposite. With the libraries contained in the.app, you don't have to worry about another package updating a dependency and exposing a conflict.
I would suggest you to work about some few years with Apple computer everyday - with other OSes aviable - and I think you would change your mind.
I've been using Mac OS X since before it was called Mac OS X.
Yes, space stored on the hard disk is insignificant, but those very libraries will have to be loaded into ram.
That's a good point. OS X mostly avoids this problem by having a fairly large collection of libraries whose presence can be assumed. That may not work as well for Linux, but ideally there would be a way for the OS to detect when identical libraries are being loaded and only keep one copy in memory. (Not being a kernel hacker I have no idea if that's feasible).
Is their any reason why Openstep packages can't be distributed by the package manager and extended to contain repository information so that if you get them elsewhere you can still update them, etc?
Dependency resolution is not an issue and it hasn't been one for a regular user for looong time. If you're using stuff outside of the package manager repositories then you know what you're doing and you can live with the consequences.
Sorry, that's just silly. Linux is supposed to be the open system, but you're telling me that it's normal and expected that my system goes wonky if I try to run anything that hasn't been blessed by a central repository? Not acceptable.
I know I've had to clean more than one Registry entry in my Windows install....Man, an InstallShield-like installer is a step BACKWARDS for package management!
Ah, that's the problem, you're comparing to Windows instead of a competent platform. Yes, apt-get/Synaptic is better than Windows installers, but Mac OS X's.apps are far better than either.
Nothing prevents automatic updaters from working with app bundles. If anything, it's easier: just compare the version in the app's meta-information to the version in the repository. No worries about a centralized database being out of sync due to manual installs.
No, OS X.apps. The concept is similar, but there's no need to limit it to a particular language or platform.
Do you want library reuse, or simple "big packs of complete software"?
As an end user, absolutely the latter. If I have an app on one computer, I should be able to copy a single file (or in the case of OS X, what appears as a single file) to another machine and be able to run it. I shouldn't have to worry that a third-party app I downloaded will break the dependencies of existing apps when I install it. With today's hard drives, the wasted space from multiple copies of libraries is insignificant.
when I go to install something that's outside the scope of my repositories and get shot down by the dependency failures... that's when I get a little peeved.
Ditto. This is IMO one of the biggest weakness of Linux, and conversely Mac OS X's single-file.app format is one of its biggest advantages. It's odd and annoying that the "open" system only works well if you stick with centralized repositories, while the "closed" system is just fine running lots of third-party apps from multiple sources.
I use my cell on the road, with a headset as it is alot safer this way.
Actually it isn't. Multiple studies have found hands-free calling has a minimal impact on safety. The major distraction isn't physically holding the phone, it's the mental context switching involved in having a conversation with someone who doesn't share your environment.
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty of good reasons to do that. Cross-platform testing is a major one; say your primary development environment is Linux or Windows, but you want to test on OS X. And when Leopard ships it would also be useful to run a virtualized Tiger under Leopard (or vice versa), to test Mac apps under both versions. And there's always the standard reasons for virtualization to run apps that aren't available on the native OS; Windows or Linux users might want to run Delicious Library or OmniGraffle or other Mac-only apps.
"An infinite number of Linux drivers were created this week."
That's easy:
#!/usr/bin/perl
sub createDriver {
$h = sprintf "%lx",$_[0];
$h = "0$h" if (length($h)%2!=0);
open(D, ">$_[0].driver");
for($i=0; $i<length($h)/2; $i++) {
printf D "%c",hex(substr($h,$i*2,2));
}
}
$d = 0;
while(1) {createDriver($d++);}
(Determining which output files are useful Linux drivers is left as an exercise for the reader).
The FairTax is progressive; because of the universal rebate the poor will pay low or negative taxes. Try again.
I prefer small economic communites (of no more than 6000 people at the most, preferably more like 500) that are isolationist and defend their borders against foreign imports with large amounts of force.
So like North Korea, but with no economy of scale. Let me know how that works out.
The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice.
That's true, and it's definitely an issue. But some of the double taxation already exists today; when I buy something with my after-tax income, a significant chunk of the payment goes to corporate taxes and other taxes embedded in the purchase price, which would be eliminated under the FairTax. And if I invest the money instead of immediately spending it I end up paying capital gains taxes, which also goes away with the FairTax.
Next: Like all taxes, once imposed it will never go away and will always go up. Sales taxes, being largely hidden, make it much easier for the government to jack the rates.
IIRC the FairTax calls for the tax to be clearly identified on all receipts. Because everybody pays, it would be harder to sneak in tax increases than with income taxes, where you can pretend that only the "rich" will be affected by an increase.
This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system.
Well, you can do that today by inventing extra children for more deductions, and that's just one of the countless ways to cheat on income taxes. And I don't see why we'd need a national ID other than the existing SSN.
The FairTax isn't perfect, but compared to the current mess I'd say it's a clear improvement.
PEOPLE ARE NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE, THAT ALTRUISTIC. MOVE ON.
Thank you. As you note, this is a textbook case of tragedy of the commons, and trying to guilt people into using only what they "need" is not going to work. What would help is taxing the sources of undesirable outcomes such as pollution and carbon, providing a direct incentive to consume less and seek out alternative energy sources.
All they are saying is that we don't want to support running VMs on our most basic OS.
Specifically trying to forbid it in the EULA goes well beyond not supporting it.
As for running VM's, do you think there are home users, aka mom and dad that can barely can tell the difference between OSX and Vista, that really want to run Vista Home in a VM?
Probably not. They probably don't need to run a web server or compiler either, should those also be prohibited?
Copying the software (say, from the installation disc to your hard drive) is illegal except as allowed by that agreement.
See 17 USC 117. The copying that occurs when you install (or run) software is pretty clearly an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
If they say that the cheaper "Home" versions are not allowed to run on VMs, then they have every right to make the user follow suit.
No they don't, unless the user has agreed to a contract to that effect. By any reasonable definition of "contract", EULAs aren't even close.
It's Microsoft's product and the user does not own it.
You do own the copy of the software that you bought, just like you own the copy of a book that you buy. What you don't own is the copyright, which means there are specific things you are forbidden to do. But copyright does not equal absolute control over use, contrary to what Microsoft and the **AAs would have you believe.
These days watching TV means watching ads.
Not at all. There's no reason to watch ads on TV other than laziness. And it's inefficient laziness, since the few hours you invest in learning about alternatives will save you far more time in not listening to blathering marketroids.
That way you force people to make more energy-efficient decisions about all products, not just one particular type of light bulb. This is a case where economics can work for you, not against you.
Well said. Unfortunately there are two problems: many "environmentalists" are more interested in controlling people's lives than actually improving the environment, and most aren't fans of capitalism so any plan involving market forces rather than central planning is going to be a hard sell. Of course, complex regulations often cause more problems than they solve; for example SUVs arose because of CAFE standards. The Pigou Club has the right idea: tax the bad stuff directly and you get less of it.
Now turn off your Beowulf cluster of pentium IIs in the basement, junior. Out tax penalty was $500 last month!
If the energy used to power your computers cost $500 in environmental damage, that's exactly what you should pay. Either accept the costs of your actions, or find ways to reduce them.
SMOKING AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE.
The people that voluntarily choose to go to an establishment where smoking is allowed? I'm all for banning smoking on public property, and I can usually be persuaded to go along with banning it at workplaces and airplanes and other areas where people effectively have to go. But bars and restaurants are private property and entirely optional, and I see no reason why one group of people should be able to forcibly impose their preferences on the owners.
(Disclaimer: non-smoker, dislikes smoke, dislikes government intrusion even more)
Sure it's easy enough to justify the action of sniping, just like paying some kid for his spot in line to get a playstation
Yes it is, because neither is wrong. In the latter case, both the buyer and the kid are better off as a result of the exchange, and nobody else is affected. In the former case, if a sniper beats you, then he either bid more than you were willing to pay in which case you wouldn't have gotten the item if he bid normally, or he bid less than you were willing to pay, in which case why didn't you bid that much in the first place?
By most standards the guy that sees a kid headed toward the last voltron toy in the store and then runs in front of him to grab it is an asshole.
Yes, he is. But that has no relevance to either of the above scenarios.
US manufacturing output is rising. There are fewer *jobs* in the field, but that's largely because of automation, not foreign competition. China is losing manufacturing jobs too. As productivity rises, fewer workers can produce more. While this is often bad for those who lose their jobs, it's a net benefit to society; consider buggy whip makers, phone operators, secretarial pools, etc.
either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter
Considering the consistent worldwide economic growth in the last several centuries (when not ruined by totalitarian regimes), which today is being accelerated by Moore's Law, the latter seems much more likely to me.
Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires
The US may lose its hyperpower status though any number of causes, but that's independent of whether standards of living rise or fall. The sun now sets on the British Empire, but I'd rather live in London today than in 1907.
Owning the two dark blue properties just before GO is even nicer.
The yellows and greens have better ROI because they're landed on more frequently.
No, they are NOT better. They have very serious shortcommings, like memory leaking like a hell (try Firefox on Mac)
.app doesn't hurt.
.app, you don't have to worry about another package updating a dependency and exposing a conflict.
From what I've seen Firefox is a memory hog on all platforms. It uses a bunch of Mozilla libraries that are unlikely to be shared, so having them in the
problem to launch them anyway (no way you can debug them or find how to fix, which library to replace, etc.), and they are very unstable
My experience is exactly the opposite. With the libraries contained in the
I would suggest you to work about some few years with Apple computer everyday - with other OSes aviable - and I think you would change your mind.
I've been using Mac OS X since before it was called Mac OS X.
Yes, space stored on the hard disk is insignificant, but those very libraries will have to be loaded into ram.
That's a good point. OS X mostly avoids this problem by having a fairly large collection of libraries whose presence can be assumed. That may not work as well for Linux, but ideally there would be a way for the OS to detect when identical libraries are being loaded and only keep one copy in memory. (Not being a kernel hacker I have no idea if that's feasible).
Is their any reason why Openstep packages can't be distributed by the package manager and extended to contain repository information so that if you get them elsewhere you can still update them, etc?
None whatsoever.
Dependency resolution is not an issue and it hasn't been one for a regular user for looong time. If you're using stuff outside of the package manager repositories then you know what you're doing and you can live with the consequences.
.apps are far better than either.
Sorry, that's just silly. Linux is supposed to be the open system, but you're telling me that it's normal and expected that my system goes wonky if I try to run anything that hasn't been blessed by a central repository? Not acceptable.
I know I've had to clean more than one Registry entry in my Windows install....Man, an InstallShield-like installer is a step BACKWARDS for package management!
Ah, that's the problem, you're comparing to Windows instead of a competent platform. Yes, apt-get/Synaptic is better than Windows installers, but Mac OS X's
It's grossly uneconomical
Not really. Library size << HD space.
requires manual upgrading of every separate app
Nothing prevents automatic updaters from working with app bundles. If anything, it's easier: just compare the version in the app's meta-information to the version in the repository. No worries about a centralized database being out of sync due to manual installs.
and doesn't work in a free software environment
I don't see why not.
So you want Java .jar 's..
.apps. The concept is similar, but there's no need to limit it to a particular language or platform.
No, OS X
Do you want library reuse, or simple "big packs of complete software"?
As an end user, absolutely the latter. If I have an app on one computer, I should be able to copy a single file (or in the case of OS X, what appears as a single file) to another machine and be able to run it. I shouldn't have to worry that a third-party app I downloaded will break the dependencies of existing apps when I install it. With today's hard drives, the wasted space from multiple copies of libraries is insignificant.
Meh. Grow a pair. The studios need people to watch their movies. They need the income from sales and rentals. Stand up to them, and they'll fold.
Exactly. Remember how CBS was going to stop doing HD if they didn't get the broadcast flag? They're bluffing.
when I go to install something that's outside the scope of my repositories and get shot down by the dependency failures... that's when I get a little peeved.
.app format is one of its biggest advantages. It's odd and annoying that the "open" system only works well if you stick with centralized repositories, while the "closed" system is just fine running lots of third-party apps from multiple sources.
Ditto. This is IMO one of the biggest weakness of Linux, and conversely Mac OS X's single-file
I use my cell on the road, with a headset as it is alot safer this way.
Actually it isn't. Multiple studies have found hands-free calling has a minimal impact on safety. The major distraction isn't physically holding the phone, it's the mental context switching involved in having a conversation with someone who doesn't share your environment.