Short messages are Twitter's killer feature, really. It make people limit their updates to a single, concise thought. It's the reason I can scan tweets.
Now, I'm not saying they have to be 140 characters. Maybe 200 would have the same effect. But I'm sure when you say "support more than 140" you're really meaning "support arbitrary length," right?
That's pretty ignorant. Having ready access to the insight of others like me on Twitter has saved me countless hours with specific technical problems, has guided me towards or away from specific paths months in advance, and even gave me something to do when I was stuck in a hospital without visitors (due to other family medical problems, in children).
Microsoft has pulled stuff like this. In fact, if I had a buck for every time, I'd be up to several hundred dollars by now. And if I'd invested that in Apple stock, I'd probably have a few thousand.
So Microsoft's giving refunds to all the Kin users who request one, for instance? What about all the Vista users, could they get a refund within 30 days of the initial purchase?
You always need to consider the source. What's more likely: Gizmodo posted an article to make Apple look bad, or Steve Jobs lied in a way that will be demonstrated shortly?
The apps themselves are harmless shit. There's no reason they shouldn't've been approved, unless Apple is going to reject apps for simply being lame.
The problem is that someone (presumably the developer) has iTunes account names and passwords, and used them to buy the apps. There's conspiracy theories as to how, but the most likely possibility is shared or weak passwords. When you're talking less than 500 compromised accounts over 150,000,000 accounts, it seems possible these could just be the "password" accounts or something.
I expect Apple will refund all these purchases, but whoever has the account names and passwords will still have them. The only solution is for those users to change their passwords. Though Apple SHOULD be disabling those accounts and requiring users to use the password recovery tools to re-enable them.
Wait, what? How would me using an iTunes gift card prevent someone from buying stuff using my credit card number, if they have it? If the iTunes purchase is a test of a credit card number, it's clear that they're not getting in through the iTunes store. iTunes store doesn't show the numbers of credit cards registered with it. It's not like you can do a test purchase of a song and then buy jewelry!
Why is that? Some free apps already use advertising. Apple is providing a framework the developers can use instead of writing their own or finding one. What is the problem with that?
The only thing this will change is better limit the amount of data being tracked on you, because at least some of the existing advertising frameworks are violating your privacy in ways they have promised they wouldn't.
So instead of piggybacking on this implementation of multi-tasking by Apple, you'd prefer to piggyback on some other implementation of multi-tasking by Apple?
Sure, this is harder for developers (I'm one too, with two apps in the App Store so far). But you know what? I'm okay with that. Making multitasking more deliberate on my part is a huge win for the user, and they matter more than I do.
The event focused on the iPhone. iPad isn't going to get iPhone OS 4 until much later this year. I'm sure Apple knows the answer, but I'm not sure anyone else does.
What I would say instead is there's no blame to be handed out on this. Apple decided not to integrate ZFS. That's their choice, isn't it? If you need ZFS, don't use Mac OS X.
Your analogy is flawed, in that there is no button.
That's not to say Apple shouldn't secure this. They should. But there's no button, and there's no sign. Undocumented means someone has poked through data downloaded from an unlocked phone to find where the phone number is stored.
I should probably point out (before someone else does) that "no 64-bit processes at all" in 10.4 is a bit of a simplification. They existed, they just don't matter for the purposes of discussing the runtime as they could only link to a single system library.
There's a few significant differences in the "modern" runtime library introduced with Mac OS X 10.5. I believe they've put some effort into making applications running against the modern runtime more resistant to runtime changes.
But there's a catch: The modern runtime is not binary compatible with applications built to the old runtime. That's no problem for 64-bit apps, where there was nothing compiled against the classic runtime. (10.4 didn't support any 64-bit processes at all, and even the limited hybrid 64-bit processes available built for 10.5 linked to the new runtime.) Apple could have provided the modern runtime to 32-bit apps built specifically to it, a fifth flavor of universal app. But Apple chose to provide the classic runtime to 32-bit apps, and the modern one to 64-bit apps.
I suspect as long as Mac OS X has to run apps linked to the old runtime, Apple is limited in what they can do under the application. 10.7 will probably drop Rosetta and not be supported on systems with 32-bit processors. But I suspect it will still offer *optional* 32-bit Intel compatibility, which means supporting that classic runtime somehow. 10.8 will finally drop 32-bit Intel, leaving the Mac with only the modern runtime. That's when we'll see interesting stuff start being added.
That's probably 4-5 years away, though.
Apple's used the 64-bit transition as an excuse for other things, too. For instance, the 64-bit System Preference runs preference panel plugins in a garbage collected environment.
So I don't think Apple wants developers to stop shipping fat binaries as much as they want developers to start making their code use the new runtime features. I think Mac OS X is going to get very interesting when the need to run apps linked against the classic runtime goes away.
I looked at a demo of this a few weeks ago, and even in the current state and on a OS the technology doesn't really support yet (Mac OS X 10.5) it's plenty fast enough to be useful.
The Mozilla Foundation created the Mozilla Suite. Firefox was the creation of Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross. If you have evidence that the Mozilla Foundation made a choice to adopt Firefox prior to it eating the Suite's lunch, I'd love to hear it. But even then, "create" is too strong a word.
And so it's probably more accurate to call Firefox a success in spite of Mozilla Foundation's best efforts. Any multiplicity of real competition is in spite of Mozilla Foundation, not because of. Calling it a great success of the Mozilla Foundation is just a step too far for credibility.
No, it doesn't mean they're ignorant. It means they've decided to have other priorities that Comrade Stallman's mission, and do something different. Something they think will benefit users.
And I or anyone else can find 10 articles on Stallman's attention whorism in a second. The only reason it would take more time to find more is that Google returns 10 results per page.
And what influence do you think Stallman has over Debian? And do you think that influence waxed or waned as a result of this little public temper tantrum?
So he has little influence, and he lost more as a result of this. So he "had to" do it, eh?
Stallman is irrelevant. His writings are a reminder that another side to an argument exists, but so polarized as to be useless as to what that side actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
Short messages are Twitter's killer feature, really. It make people limit their updates to a single, concise thought. It's the reason I can scan tweets.
Now, I'm not saying they have to be 140 characters. Maybe 200 would have the same effect. But I'm sure when you say "support more than 140" you're really meaning "support arbitrary length," right?
That's pretty ignorant. Having ready access to the insight of others like me on Twitter has saved me countless hours with specific technical problems, has guided me towards or away from specific paths months in advance, and even gave me something to do when I was stuck in a hospital without visitors (due to other family medical problems, in children).
It's allowed, sure. But it *is* discouraged.
Microsoft has pulled stuff like this. In fact, if I had a buck for every time, I'd be up to several hundred dollars by now. And if I'd invested that in Apple stock, I'd probably have a few thousand.
So Microsoft's giving refunds to all the Kin users who request one, for instance? What about all the Vista users, could they get a refund within 30 days of the initial purchase?
Apple's always offered full refunds on iPhones. And look, they still do!
Aw man. It just kills me that someone rated this Interesting instead of Funny. Someone actually believe it.
You always need to consider the source. What's more likely: Gizmodo posted an article to make Apple look bad, or Steve Jobs lied in a way that will be demonstrated shortly?
Hint.
The apps themselves are harmless shit. There's no reason they shouldn't've been approved, unless Apple is going to reject apps for simply being lame.
The problem is that someone (presumably the developer) has iTunes account names and passwords, and used them to buy the apps. There's conspiracy theories as to how, but the most likely possibility is shared or weak passwords. When you're talking less than 500 compromised accounts over 150,000,000 accounts, it seems possible these could just be the "password" accounts or something.
I expect Apple will refund all these purchases, but whoever has the account names and passwords will still have them. The only solution is for those users to change their passwords. Though Apple SHOULD be disabling those accounts and requiring users to use the password recovery tools to re-enable them.
Wait, what? How would me using an iTunes gift card prevent someone from buying stuff using my credit card number, if they have it? If the iTunes purchase is a test of a credit card number, it's clear that they're not getting in through the iTunes store. iTunes store doesn't show the numbers of credit cards registered with it. It's not like you can do a test purchase of a song and then buy jewelry!
Why is that? Some free apps already use advertising. Apple is providing a framework the developers can use instead of writing their own or finding one. What is the problem with that?
The only thing this will change is better limit the amount of data being tracked on you, because at least some of the existing advertising frameworks are violating your privacy in ways they have promised they wouldn't.
So instead of piggybacking on this implementation of multi-tasking by Apple, you'd prefer to piggyback on some other implementation of multi-tasking by Apple?
Sure, this is harder for developers (I'm one too, with two apps in the App Store so far). But you know what? I'm okay with that. Making multitasking more deliberate on my part is a huge win for the user, and they matter more than I do.
The event focused on the iPhone. iPad isn't going to get iPhone OS 4 until much later this year. I'm sure Apple knows the answer, but I'm not sure anyone else does.
Blameless? I wouldn't say that.
What I would say instead is there's no blame to be handed out on this. Apple decided not to integrate ZFS. That's their choice, isn't it? If you need ZFS, don't use Mac OS X.
The Pre can't do that over the proprietary interface, either. Which doesn't really matter, because DRM is gone now.
DRM is not a question of how the files are transferred, but how they're encoded.
As for why: Who cares? Apple's free to use whatever method they want.
You're ignorant. Palm does not have to do this to provide compatibility. There's an easy path to get music from iTunes to the Pre without this.
Palm has no moral high ground here.
Your analogy is flawed, in that there is no button.
That's not to say Apple shouldn't secure this. They should. But there's no button, and there's no sign. Undocumented means someone has poked through data downloaded from an unlocked phone to find where the phone number is stored.
I should probably point out (before someone else does) that "no 64-bit processes at all" in 10.4 is a bit of a simplification. They existed, they just don't matter for the purposes of discussing the runtime as they could only link to a single system library.
There's a few significant differences in the "modern" runtime library introduced with Mac OS X 10.5. I believe they've put some effort into making applications running against the modern runtime more resistant to runtime changes.
But there's a catch: The modern runtime is not binary compatible with applications built to the old runtime. That's no problem for 64-bit apps, where there was nothing compiled against the classic runtime. (10.4 didn't support any 64-bit processes at all, and even the limited hybrid 64-bit processes available built for 10.5 linked to the new runtime.) Apple could have provided the modern runtime to 32-bit apps built specifically to it, a fifth flavor of universal app. But Apple chose to provide the classic runtime to 32-bit apps, and the modern one to 64-bit apps.
I suspect as long as Mac OS X has to run apps linked to the old runtime, Apple is limited in what they can do under the application. 10.7 will probably drop Rosetta and not be supported on systems with 32-bit processors. But I suspect it will still offer *optional* 32-bit Intel compatibility, which means supporting that classic runtime somehow. 10.8 will finally drop 32-bit Intel, leaving the Mac with only the modern runtime. That's when we'll see interesting stuff start being added.
That's probably 4-5 years away, though.
Apple's used the 64-bit transition as an excuse for other things, too. For instance, the 64-bit System Preference runs preference panel plugins in a garbage collected environment.
So I don't think Apple wants developers to stop shipping fat binaries as much as they want developers to start making their code use the new runtime features. I think Mac OS X is going to get very interesting when the need to run apps linked against the classic runtime goes away.
I looked at a demo of this a few weeks ago, and even in the current state and on a OS the technology doesn't really support yet (Mac OS X 10.5) it's plenty fast enough to be useful.
I'm quite sure AT&T's exclusive on the iPhone will end on a date we don't know that's already in a contract between Apple and AT&T.
Until then, Apple's gotta play by AT&T's rules.
Thankfully, Palm can write desktop software that can access the iTunes library.
Quite right. You can probably assume he knew this was coming. It isn't like this happened overnight because Microsoft's feelings were hurt.
The Mozilla Foundation created the Mozilla Suite. Firefox was the creation of Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross. If you have evidence that the Mozilla Foundation made a choice to adopt Firefox prior to it eating the Suite's lunch, I'd love to hear it. But even then, "create" is too strong a word.
And so it's probably more accurate to call Firefox a success in spite of Mozilla Foundation's best efforts. Any multiplicity of real competition is in spite of Mozilla Foundation, not because of. Calling it a great success of the Mozilla Foundation is just a step too far for credibility.
No, it doesn't mean they're ignorant. It means they've decided to have other priorities that Comrade Stallman's mission, and do something different. Something they think will benefit users.
And I or anyone else can find 10 articles on Stallman's attention whorism in a second. The only reason it would take more time to find more is that Google returns 10 results per page.
And what influence do you think Stallman has over Debian? And do you think that influence waxed or waned as a result of this little public temper tantrum?
So he has little influence, and he lost more as a result of this. So he "had to" do it, eh?
Stallman is irrelevant. His writings are a reminder that another side to an argument exists, but so polarized as to be useless as to what that side actually is.