That isn't really a problem with Carbon, but with insufficiently updated code. There are sort of two levels of Carbon. The first level is what you get when you do a straight port of classic Mac OS code , tweaking it enough so that it compiles and runs. Applications built like this still have some of the classic Mac OS limitations (31 character filenames, the rest of the app freezes while you select from a menu, etc). To have a quality Mac OS X Carbon app you need to update your code to use the newer APIs that take full advantage of Mac OS X.
The file type and creator codes were stored in the resource fork
No, they weren't (aren't). They are stored in HFS filesystem structures (and emulated with extra files on UFS). Files with only a data fork still have a type and creator.
Resource forks are still in full use by OS X and in fact if you read Apple's documentation you will find that it recommends that you set both the file type and creator codes and the file extension.
Again, type and creator codes are *not* stored in the resource fork. Check Inside Macintosh if you don't believe me.
resource forks were designed to store supporting images, sounds etc and meta-data.
Correct except for the last item. Much of this functionality, although not all, can be replicated with bundles. For example, TextEdit can use ".rtfd" bundles, which appear as a single file in the Finder, but are actually directories with separate files for text, images, etc.
In some ways OSX takes a step backward by getting rid of the resource fork.
It's a common misconception, but filesystem metadata has nothing to do with Mac resource forks; metadata is not and never was stored in resource forks. The concepts are completely orthogonal; you can have either one without the other. Resource forks are deprecated in Mac OS X (replaced by bundles), and both the pro and anti-metadata factions support this.
Incidentally, she also talks in the episode where the kids are adopted by the Flanderses, and I _think_ there's a third as well, though I can't put my finger on it at the moment.
In the episode where they show Bart and Lisa as babies who always called Homer "Homer", the last scene is Maggie saying "Daddy".
is supposed to contain the precursor of DRM code. A recent tech paper at Apple's own site discussed it in brief for about 5 paragraphs.
Do you have a source for this (such as the tech paper URL)? I find it very unlikely that Apple would support DRM measures, given their "digital hub" strategy.
And with Apple's proposed adoption of file extensions as the standard filetype recogntion scheme, they'll be in the same boat as all the others anyway.
Any Mac OS X users interested in changing Apple's policies on file extensions should see the Mac OS X Metadata Petition. Yes, online petitions normally don't count for much, but John Siracusa has been very active in trying to get Apple to rethink this subject.
No, it is illegally duplicated. This may or may not represent a lost sale. For all you know, it may actually increase sales if the "thief" tries the program, likes it, and pays for the next version. Copyright violation is illegal, and wrong in most cases, but it is not morally equivalent to theft.
Bottom line is that there is no rational reason to use Objective-C. Clearly this is a case of Not Invented Here on Apple's part.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Cocoa could not be done in C++. (Yes, Turing equivalence, I'm talking in practical terms here.) Cocoa depends on a dynamic runtime for much of its power, which C++ does not have. Simple example: given the name of a class in a string at runtime, instantiate an object of that class. One line in ObjC, not possible in C++. Another example: given an arbitrary object and the name of a method, determine whether the object has a method of that name, and if so call it. Trivial in ObjC, not in C++. These dynamic capabilities are used throughout Cocoa, and that is why a dynamic language such as ObjC or Java is required to use it.
Then your opinion is worth much less than those of us who have. Objective-C is more flexible, powerful, and easy to use than C++. Cocoa could not be done in C++ because it lacks the dynamic runtime of Objective-C.
I swear to GOD there are about half a dozen conservatives who can spell, and maybe three or four of those who can construct gramatically correct sentences.
I'd say that speaks for itself. Additionally, most conservatives are able to communicate without using the f-word in every third sentence. Thank you for reaffirming my perception that a substantial majority of liberals are arrogant elitists.
I would argue that making an OS suit the average user doesn't have to make it unusable to technical users.
Absolutely. Mac OS X is an example of this. Nontechnical users get pretty icons to click in the Dock, and geeks get a fully functional Unix under the hood.
Also a concern (well, maybe just for me) is that the mac version seems non-existant. You can buy or flash the GF Mx line, and older Radeons...what about the current line?
Generally new Mac graphics cards are introduced by Steve Jobs alongside new Macs. 18 months ago at the summer MacWorld Steve got really pissed at ATI because they announced the Mac Radeon version the day before his keynote when he was supposed to unveil it. I would hope that at the MacWorld in January we'll see Mac versions of the GF3 Titanium and/or Radeon 8500.
I'm not going to defend everything Bush has done, but I do have to point out that most of it has been done with the full support of both parties (and most of the American people). For example, Democrats and Republicans nearly unanimously voted for the so-called Patriot Act despite not having actually read it.
I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.
In addition to his intern adventures, Clinton also abused executive orders and bombed the hell out of other countries without a declaration of war, including deliberately targeting civilians.
You're assuming the Democrats care about civil liberties more than the Republicans, which is not the case. Clinton and Gore supported the CDA, tried to mandate the Clipper Chip, and aggressively defended the encryption export controls. Especially after 9/11, both parties are willing to throw the Constitution out the window because they believe that's what the voters want. Sadly, they're probably right.
How exactly has the DMCA hurt you personally, anyways? It has yet to hurt me at all
When they came for the Jews...
as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc)
Don't be so quick to accept the theory that EULAs have any legal force. If software is a purchase and not a license, as this judge seems to realize, then you're perfectly free to break the copy protection, or rather you would be without the DMCA.
If there was a law that actually forbade me from making backup copies of my compact discs, then I'd get pissed. The DMCA does not do that.
Well, you already can't back up DVDs, and what about the new "copy-protected" CDs? Anything that enables you to back them up is going to be a "circumvention device".
f the software vendor (Microsoft for example) can point out that you DID click "I Agree" to their EULA then the game is basically over
Even if they can prove that (which could be difficult, what if I had my neighbor's son install it?), there are still two other problems. First, at the point you're presented with the click-wrap EULA, you've *already* bought it. The copy is now yours, and you can lie to it if you want. Second, even if you accept that a EULA can retroactively turn a sale into a license, every EULA I've seen is entirely one-sided. You get no rights you did not already have under standard copyright law, and have substantial restrictions imposed. Contracts without consideration are not valid.
Of course, IANAL, so take this with whatever quantity of salt you wish.
I sure as hell wouldn't pay in advance for the possibility that someone would write a game I might like. I want the game to exist, and I want to know whether it's fun, *THEN* decide whether or not I want it.
So the publisher can release a free demo, like id did with Doom and Quake.
The escrow agent would be horribly overpowered, and could easily screw either or both sides.
And your bank could decide to confiscate your account and keep your money. They don't, because it would be illegal, they'd get sued, and their reputation would suffer. Ditto for the escrow agents.
The current system serves my needs quite well for video games.
The current system has also resulted in draconian user-hostile laws like the DMCA. If all you're worried about it being able to buy games, then the Street Performer Protocol is not the best system. Looking at the larger picture, there are benefits you're not considering.
Right, then they should charge you for the amount of bandwidth you actually use, regardless of how many different machines are connected. This article takes the bizarre attitude that a user who surfs CNN from three computers is more of a problem than a user who downloads hundreds of megs from Gnutella every day on one computer.
The system that Mac OS X uses is from the NeXT OS. So, it predates Windows 2000.
NeXT used Display Postscript for its imaging, which as far as I know had no support for alpha blending. Apple wrote a new graphics layer (Quartz) from scratch for Mac OS X.
I agree, with the exception that I fail to see how click-wrap EULAs can be considered valid contracts. It's done after the sale is completed, it's purely one-sided (the user gets no rights he does not have under standard copyright law), and clicking "OK" in a dialog box is not sufficient to show intent. If software publishers want to enforce additional restrictions beyond those of copyright law, they should require users to sign a real contract before purchasing the software. Of course, they wouldn't like that at all, since it would make it obvious to the users that they're being taken advantage of.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't really a problem with Carbon, but with insufficiently updated code. There are sort of two levels of Carbon. The first level is what you get when you do a straight port of classic Mac OS code , tweaking it enough so that it compiles and runs. Applications built like this still have some of the classic Mac OS limitations (31 character filenames, the rest of the app freezes while you select from a menu, etc). To have a quality Mac OS X Carbon app you need to update your code to use the newer APIs that take full advantage of Mac OS X.
Try WindowShade X
No, they weren't (aren't). They are stored in HFS filesystem structures (and emulated with extra files on UFS). Files with only a data fork still have a type and creator.
Resource forks are still in full use by OS X and in fact if you read Apple's documentation you will find that it recommends that you set both the file type and creator codes and the file extension.
Again, type and creator codes are *not* stored in the resource fork. Check Inside Macintosh if you don't believe me.
resource forks were designed to store supporting images, sounds etc and meta-data.
Correct except for the last item. Much of this functionality, although not all, can be replicated with bundles. For example, TextEdit can use ".rtfd" bundles, which appear as a single file in the Finder, but are actually directories with separate files for text, images, etc.
Have you used Mac OS X? What's wrong with its CLI environment? It's pretty much a full BSD installation.
It's a common misconception, but filesystem metadata has nothing to do with Mac resource forks; metadata is not and never was stored in resource forks. The concepts are completely orthogonal; you can have either one without the other. Resource forks are deprecated in Mac OS X (replaced by bundles), and both the pro and anti-metadata factions support this.
In the episode where they show Bart and Lisa as babies who always called Homer "Homer", the last scene is Maggie saying "Daddy".
Do you have a source for this (such as the tech paper URL)? I find it very unlikely that Apple would support DRM measures, given their "digital hub" strategy.
Any Mac OS X users interested in changing Apple's policies on file extensions should see the Mac OS X Metadata Petition. Yes, online petitions normally don't count for much, but John Siracusa has been very active in trying to get Apple to rethink this subject.
No, it is illegally duplicated. This may or may not represent a lost sale. For all you know, it may actually increase sales if the "thief" tries the program, likes it, and pays for the next version. Copyright violation is illegal, and wrong in most cases, but it is not morally equivalent to theft.
Moderate the parent up, it's exactly correct.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Cocoa could not be done in C++. (Yes, Turing equivalence, I'm talking in practical terms here.) Cocoa depends on a dynamic runtime for much of its power, which C++ does not have. Simple example: given the name of a class in a string at runtime, instantiate an object of that class. One line in ObjC, not possible in C++. Another example: given an arbitrary object and the name of a method, determine whether the object has a method of that name, and if so call it. Trivial in ObjC, not in C++. These dynamic capabilities are used throughout Cocoa, and that is why a dynamic language such as ObjC or Java is required to use it.
Then your opinion is worth much less than those of us who have. Objective-C is more flexible, powerful, and easy to use than C++. Cocoa could not be done in C++ because it lacks the dynamic runtime of Objective-C.
I'd say that speaks for itself. Additionally, most conservatives are able to communicate without using the f-word in every third sentence. Thank you for reaffirming my perception that a substantial majority of liberals are arrogant elitists.
Absolutely. Mac OS X is an example of this. Nontechnical users get pretty icons to click in the Dock, and geeks get a fully functional Unix under the hood.
Generally new Mac graphics cards are introduced by Steve Jobs alongside new Macs. 18 months ago at the summer MacWorld Steve got really pissed at ATI because they announced the Mac Radeon version the day before his keynote when he was supposed to unveil it. I would hope that at the MacWorld in January we'll see Mac versions of the GF3 Titanium and/or Radeon 8500.
I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.
In addition to his intern adventures, Clinton also abused executive orders and bombed the hell out of other countries without a declaration of war, including deliberately targeting civilians.
You're assuming the Democrats care about civil liberties more than the Republicans, which is not the case. Clinton and Gore supported the CDA, tried to mandate the Clipper Chip, and aggressively defended the encryption export controls. Especially after 9/11, both parties are willing to throw the Constitution out the window because they believe that's what the voters want. Sadly, they're probably right.
When they came for the Jews...
as I never really had the right to make backups of my stuff in the first place (EULAs, copy protection, etc)
Don't be so quick to accept the theory that EULAs have any legal force. If software is a purchase and not a license, as this judge seems to realize, then you're perfectly free to break the copy protection, or rather you would be without the DMCA.
If there was a law that actually forbade me from making backup copies of my compact discs, then I'd get pissed. The DMCA does not do that.
Well, you already can't back up DVDs, and what about the new "copy-protected" CDs? Anything that enables you to back them up is going to be a "circumvention device".
Even if they can prove that (which could be difficult, what if I had my neighbor's son install it?), there are still two other problems. First, at the point you're presented with the click-wrap EULA, you've *already* bought it. The copy is now yours, and you can lie to it if you want. Second, even if you accept that a EULA can retroactively turn a sale into a license, every EULA I've seen is entirely one-sided. You get no rights you did not already have under standard copyright law, and have substantial restrictions imposed. Contracts without consideration are not valid.
Of course, IANAL, so take this with whatever quantity of salt you wish.
I'd be curious to know too, but this may not be a good question to ask while the litigation is ongoing.
So the publisher can release a free demo, like id did with Doom and Quake.
The escrow agent would be horribly overpowered, and could easily screw either or both sides.
And your bank could decide to confiscate your account and keep your money. They don't, because it would be illegal, they'd get sued, and their reputation would suffer. Ditto for the escrow agents.
The current system serves my needs quite well for video games.
The current system has also resulted in draconian user-hostile laws like the DMCA. If all you're worried about it being able to buy games, then the Street Performer Protocol is not the best system. Looking at the larger picture, there are benefits you're not considering.
Right, then they should charge you for the amount of bandwidth you actually use, regardless of how many different machines are connected. This article takes the bizarre attitude that a user who surfs CNN from three computers is more of a problem than a user who downloads hundreds of megs from Gnutella every day on one computer.
And in Mac OS X (using Cocoa):
[window setAlphaValue:alpha];
where window is an NSWindow and alpha is a float between 0 (fully transparent) and 1 (opaque).
NeXT used Display Postscript for its imaging, which as far as I know had no support for alpha blending. Apple wrote a new graphics layer (Quartz) from scratch for Mac OS X.
I agree, with the exception that I fail to see how click-wrap EULAs can be considered valid contracts. It's done after the sale is completed, it's purely one-sided (the user gets no rights he does not have under standard copyright law), and clicking "OK" in a dialog box is not sufficient to show intent. If software publishers want to enforce additional restrictions beyond those of copyright law, they should require users to sign a real contract before purchasing the software. Of course, they wouldn't like that at all, since it would make it obvious to the users that they're being taken advantage of.