everyone else has a mac and they don't want to stand out
What? Would there be another reason to buy a Mac, other than the desire to stand out? In fact, by that metric a person owned by a desire to "stand out", when surrounded by Apple zombies, would immediately purchase an IBM product. I mean, Apple epitomizes cool, and IBM is the antithesis of that... so hold up that old IBM Thinkpad with pride, at least until you get beaten to death with Macbooks.
Sure? From what I'm looking at, OS X uses an X server with modifications... I'd say a pretty damn important part of the GUI layer is FOSS-based...
Sadly, OS X uses its own, proprietary graphics server called "Quartz". It's slower, less functional, and more resource intensive than X11.
Yes, but the usual Mac enthusiast's response would be that a. machines are so fast nowadays who cares if it's slower and b. it's functional enough, it's a Mac and c. machines are so fast nowadays who cares if it's more resource intensive.
"the open source and free software movements haven't produced anything remotely as useful as... the iPhone"
I'm not sure whether this is due to the difficulty getting make and gcc to construct things out of plastic, metal and semi-conductors - or a lack of configure options...
Insightful you may be, but that was one of the most entertaining posts I've come across lately. Certainly some others missed the humor entirely, as did the mods.
But Apple is not an open source operation, any more than Microsoft is.
OS X is largely built out of FOSS: its kernel, compilers, command line, drivers, browser, etc. Apple is really shipping a heavily customized FOSS operating system. Microsoft OTOH has built almost all its core technologies themselves, using open source to fill some gaps.
Yes, I understand that. But if you were to seriously try to do anything with Apple's GUI, other than what Apple wants to be done with it, do you really think you wouldn't end up in court? They used a slew of open source products for a lot of the back-end stuff, true. In the end, though, the part of the Mac that makes it a Mac is anything but open. If it were all that "open", they wouldn't have sued Psystar into oblivion, and there'd be plenty of Mac clones. Like I said, Apple is no more "open source" than Microsoft. There's a lot more to that term than having incorporated a lot of existing open source stuff into your product, and it's telling that they chose an operating system that was licensed in such a way that Apple is not required to release squat if it doesn't want to.
Now, keep in mind that I'm not in any way criticizing Apple for that approach. It's the reason those products were licensed in that fashion to start with... but Apple is not an open source vendor, not now, not ever.
So complain about the issue that actually bothers you. You're annoyed by LOUD PEOPLE, not by people on cell phones.
No, I'm pretty much annoyed by people on cell phones whether they're talking or not. They tend not to be aware of what's going on around them, force others to step out of their way to avoid them as if they're some kind of royalty, and rather than admit when they've been acting badly will instead cop an imperious attitude (you know, the old "I'm on the PHONE how dare you interrupt me!" look.)
Hell, I was leaving the grocery store parking lot in my car, got thumped by this woman in her fifties who was just rambling on a mile-a-minute on her cell phone. So, I get out of my car, check my rear bumper for damage and then went over to the driver's side window of her car. She completely ignored me in favor of her phone conversation. I tapped on the window, and she rolled it down and said angrily, "What? WHAT? Can't you see I'm on the phone?!!" to which I said, "You just hit my car." She said, "No I didn't", rolled the window back up and went back to that brain-sapping device jammed up against the side of her head. Fortunately there wasn't any damage to my vehicle so I just shook my head and drove off.
A few days later, I was sitting in the parking lot out in front of our local drug store, when another car pulled up next to me. The cell-phone-abusing female behind the wheel was flapping her lips at an incredible rate, and in the process of getting out of her car slammed her door into the passenger side of my car. She DIDN''T EVEN NOTICE. I'd had enough of that kind of nonsense at that point, so I got out and said, "You just dinged my car!" Her response? "No I didn't." I said, "LOOK!", to which she replied "That was there already." There could have been a five foot hole in the side of my car and she wouldn't have noticed it. That time I called the cops and filled out a police report.
And don't forget that yelling is the universal way to make someone understand what you're saying. Even if they don't speak English you can just raise your voice a bit and they'll understand...
or at least that's what people seem to think.
So true. Of course, what they ultimately take away from that experience is that the speaker is a loudmouthed idiot.
It's not that they're talking on their cellphones that makes us say it's rude IT'S HOW THEY ARE YELLING ON THEIR CELLPHONES SO LOUD THE REST OF US CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER that makes us say it's rude.
True, and if you'd like an excellent example of why a new cellphone etiquette is needed, check out this very educational YouTube video on the subject.
The exact same thing can be said for Linux fans, Windows fans, or any other clique.
I can't remember the last time I heard a Windows user defend his OS' faults and claim they're actually beneficial. Quite the opposite: usually they're bitching about something that the %@*#*$! computer did wrong. Mac and Linux users, however, will both defend their choice to the end, regardless of actual facts. That's why they're part of a hivemind: they aren't honest with themselves.
Use what you are happy with, everything else is an illusion.
Which was, if you go back and read my post again, the original point I was trying to make. You got lost when I called you part of a hivemind.
Android called to let you know that despite the hype, it is trying to appease too many mobile operators with vested interests.
On the other hand, Android (and third-party AOSP-based ROMS like CyanogenMod) have made a lot of people aware of the power of a true portable computing platform that isn't arbitrarily crippled by a bloodsucking cellular provider or an arrogant hardware vendor. I currently have a T-Mobile G1 running Cyanogenmod, and I'd be hard pressed to take anything less from a cell phone operator at this point. They'd better wise up (fast) to the fact that people want Internet-aware general-purpose mobile computing, not cell phones, and that nickel-and-diming customers for basic services is a good way to lose them to the competition.
If *only* there were a freely available OS to us on phones that wasn't from Apple - hmmm
Most of Apple's iPhone and desktop OS is FOSS anyway: the Mach kernel, BSD libraries, the gcc compiler and runtime, and tons more.
True, but the GUI layer isn't, and that's what is most important from a typical user's perspective. Apple will defend that "intellectual property" to the death.
Further the notion that "the Apple brand is almost synonymous with free-thinking creativity" is about a decade out of date.
I spend most of my days in various professional recording studios video production houses and you see a lot fewer Macs than you used to.
Yes, well, let's face it, for postproduction work there's a lot of nice stuff out for Windows now... the Mac edge in that area has been eroding steadily for a long time now. And render farms... well, most of the ones I know about seem to be running Linux or some other Unix variant.
"customers are pragmatic about quality, and the open source and free software movements haven't produced anything remotely as useful as Mac OS X and the iPhone."
No.. they just created what runs on the them, that's all..
Meh.
Yeah. And let's not forget that Mac OS X and the iPhone run a Unix variant under the hood. I mean, it's not like Apple didn't play off the work of others. Plus which, it's people who are "pragmatic" about quality that run Windows... it's people who are fanatic about a particular kind of quality that use Macs.
Me, I just want my operating system (whatever it is) to reliably run my applications. How's that for pragmatism?
I spend most of my days in various professional recording studios video production houses and you see a lot fewer Macs than you used to.
Funny, all the IT professionals and programmers I meet seem to be using MacBooks these days.
Which is entirely irrelevant. I'm an "IT Professional and programmer" and I carry a Thinkpad. Why? Because it's the best option for me, in order to best accomplish the tasks I set myself. Look, nobody is arguing that Apple's products have a lot going for them, so there's no need for you to defend them. What is being discussed is whether or not individuals who are part of a cult-like self-reinforcing hivemind can be considered "freethinking". Personally, I don't think so. If you're someone who rationally evaluated his or her computing requirements, looking at all the options, and then settled on a Mac as the best answer, well, bully for you. Like I said, Apple makes nice stuff. If, on the other hand, you simply bought a Mac because, in your view, there can be no other option, well... as a child your parents must have given you mental blocks for Christmas. There is a world of computing beyond Apple Computer's current product line.
Whilst I sympathise, you're being rather melodramatic.
And you, my friend, are being remarkably unsympathetic. Having taken a similar sojourn through the American medical system with my father some years ago, and having dealt with the same level of near-lethal incompetence, believe me Mr. GButler69 is not being melodramatic. You have to watch your step when subjecting yourself to hospital care, especially if it involves any significant procedures. There's a lot of different ways to get screwed if you don't pay attention.
I would always look over the various agreements they want you to sign before surgery, and make specific edits. For example, I would strike out and initial any line on the order of "... to be performed by Dr. xxxx or his assigns." Sorry doctor, you're the one I picked because of your experience, and you don't get to toss in a less-competent substitute while you hit the golf course. If you can't make it for some reason, we expect you to re-schedule.
And if the US adopted a socialised healthcare service, you wouldn't have had to pay a thing.
The U.S. already has a socialized medical system. It's called "insurance companies". What... you don't think the idea of everyone paying into the kitty and taking out when in need is socialist? Well, it is, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The problem is more one of implementation than principle: our system is very inefficient at converting health care dollars into actual health care, because there are too many middlemen picking off a share of our money. I mean, between the profit margins of the insurance companies themselves, the hospitals and clinics, doctors and support personnel and, of course, the manufacturers and suppliers of drugs, medical equipment and other products it's a wonder we get any care at all. Unfortunately, that's always going to be an issue when attempting to implement a socialized system at any level when dealing with a self-serving bureaucracy and an even more corrupt private sector. Remember, no matter what laws and regulatory burdens you impose, it is private sector organizations that actually provide the medical goods and services that we consume. It's been demonstrated rather conclusively that, given the disconnect between the cost of insurance-company-supplied medical care, and our ability to pay for it, said suppliers can and will charge whatever the hell they want.
Formally socializing health care under the auspices of the Federal Government will do nothing to change the underlying dishonesty that pervades the entire system. Does socialized medicine work well for other countries? Certainly it does, but that means nothing whatsoever when placed in the context of the United States' overarching central government. I agree, some nations can trust their bureaucrats, but we would be fools to do the same.
The bastard thing is that most in the US overpay their taxes by having a portion withdrawn from each paycheck. "Paying our taxes" is just telling them that they ripped us off during the year and we'd like the money back.
I finally learned a productive response that has served me well for 20+ years: I draw a dependency diagram on a whiteboard, with all of the "completed" stuff in green, and all the "incomplete" stuff in red (redrawn in green as completed), and with our (even wildly optimistic) estimates for each.
That's a great idea, but it presumes that your "screamers" are merely misinformed and willing to listen to reason... not completely irrational. I've dealt with both types, and the latter can be a real challenge, let me tell you. Show them all the charts you want, they won't believe you and figure that you're lying to them because you're just lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
"IBM Era" I hate to break it to you, the Lenovo systems are a poor imitation of their forefathers.
Which is, no doubt, the reason why the GP specified "IBM Era."
everyone else has a mac and they don't want to stand out
What? Would there be another reason to buy a Mac, other than the desire to stand out? In fact, by that metric a person owned by a desire to "stand out", when surrounded by Apple zombies, would immediately purchase an IBM product. I mean, Apple epitomizes cool, and IBM is the antithesis of that ... so hold up that old IBM Thinkpad with pride, at least until you get beaten to death with Macbooks.
it does suit her needs nicely.
No, it suits her prejudices nicely. And that's enough for most people.
I don't want to start a conspiracy theory or anything, but I have a cousin who only turned bender AFTER he bought an iphone and mac book.
Coincidence or causation? Has anyone checked the iphone source code for back-doors?
I don't know about that, but I do know that Applesoft BASIC had a POKE statement, so there's some precedent here.
Sure? From what I'm looking at, OS X uses an X server with modifications... I'd say a pretty damn important part of the GUI layer is FOSS-based...
Sadly, OS X uses its own, proprietary graphics server called "Quartz". It's slower, less functional, and more resource intensive than X11.
Yes, but the usual Mac enthusiast's response would be that a. machines are so fast nowadays who cares if it's slower and b. it's functional enough, it's a Mac and c. machines are so fast nowadays who cares if it's more resource intensive.
"the open source and free software movements haven't produced anything remotely as useful as ... the iPhone"
I'm not sure whether this is due to the difficulty getting make and gcc to construct things out of plastic, metal and semi-conductors - or a lack of configure options...
Insightful you may be, but that was one of the most entertaining posts I've come across lately. Certainly some others missed the humor entirely, as did the mods.
But Apple is not an open source operation, any more than Microsoft is.
OS X is largely built out of FOSS: its kernel, compilers, command line, drivers, browser, etc. Apple is really shipping a heavily customized FOSS operating system. Microsoft OTOH has built almost all its core technologies themselves, using open source to fill some gaps.
Yes, I understand that. But if you were to seriously try to do anything with Apple's GUI, other than what Apple wants to be done with it, do you really think you wouldn't end up in court? They used a slew of open source products for a lot of the back-end stuff, true. In the end, though, the part of the Mac that makes it a Mac is anything but open. If it were all that "open", they wouldn't have sued Psystar into oblivion, and there'd be plenty of Mac clones. Like I said, Apple is no more "open source" than Microsoft. There's a lot more to that term than having incorporated a lot of existing open source stuff into your product, and it's telling that they chose an operating system that was licensed in such a way that Apple is not required to release squat if it doesn't want to.
... but Apple is not an open source vendor, not now, not ever.
Now, keep in mind that I'm not in any way criticizing Apple for that approach. It's the reason those products were licensed in that fashion to start with
So complain about the issue that actually bothers you. You're annoyed by LOUD PEOPLE, not by people on cell phones.
No, I'm pretty much annoyed by people on cell phones whether they're talking or not. They tend not to be aware of what's going on around them, force others to step out of their way to avoid them as if they're some kind of royalty, and rather than admit when they've been acting badly will instead cop an imperious attitude (you know, the old "I'm on the PHONE how dare you interrupt me!" look.)
Hell, I was leaving the grocery store parking lot in my car, got thumped by this woman in her fifties who was just rambling on a mile-a-minute on her cell phone. So, I get out of my car, check my rear bumper for damage and then went over to the driver's side window of her car. She completely ignored me in favor of her phone conversation. I tapped on the window, and she rolled it down and said angrily, "What? WHAT? Can't you see I'm on the phone?!!" to which I said, "You just hit my car." She said, "No I didn't", rolled the window back up and went back to that brain-sapping device jammed up against the side of her head. Fortunately there wasn't any damage to my vehicle so I just shook my head and drove off.
A few days later, I was sitting in the parking lot out in front of our local drug store, when another car pulled up next to me. The cell-phone-abusing female behind the wheel was flapping her lips at an incredible rate, and in the process of getting out of her car slammed her door into the passenger side of my car. She DIDN''T EVEN NOTICE. I'd had enough of that kind of nonsense at that point, so I got out and said, "You just dinged my car!" Her response? "No I didn't." I said, "LOOK!", to which she replied "That was there already." There could have been a five foot hole in the side of my car and she wouldn't have noticed it. That time I called the cops and filled out a police report.
People on cell phones can be DICKs. Period.
And don't forget that yelling is the universal way to make someone understand what you're saying. Even if they don't speak English you can just raise your voice a bit and they'll understand...
or at least that's what people seem to think.
So true. Of course, what they ultimately take away from that experience is that the speaker is a loudmouthed idiot.
It's not that they're talking on their cellphones that makes us say it's rude IT'S HOW THEY ARE YELLING ON THEIR CELLPHONES SO LOUD THE REST OF US CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER that makes us say it's rude.
True, and if you'd like an excellent example of why a new cellphone etiquette is needed, check out this very educational YouTube video on the subject.
My cousin is gay and an Environmentalist.
I'm guessing he or she does a lot more than just hug trees.
The article claims that FOSS hasn't produced anything of value, when in fact the iPhone almost certainly wouldn't exist without FOSS.
I didn't make any statement to the contrary, did I. But Apple is not an open source operation, any more than Microsoft is.
Goddammit. I'm a dumbass. Mod me down and ignore this...
Done.
The exact same thing can be said for Linux fans, Windows fans, or any other clique.
I can't remember the last time I heard a Windows user defend his OS' faults and claim they're actually beneficial. Quite the opposite: usually they're bitching about something that the %@*#*$! computer did wrong. Mac and Linux users, however, will both defend their choice to the end, regardless of actual facts. That's why they're part of a hivemind: they aren't honest with themselves.
Use what you are happy with, everything else is an illusion.
Which was, if you go back and read my post again, the original point I was trying to make. You got lost when I called you part of a hivemind.
Whatever happened to "Apple the computer for the rest of us..."
The rest of us use Windows and Linux and other things. Apple stopped caring about us a long time ago ... just like we stopped caring about Apple.
Android called to let you know that despite the hype, it is trying to appease too many mobile operators with vested interests.
On the other hand, Android (and third-party AOSP-based ROMS like CyanogenMod) have made a lot of people aware of the power of a true portable computing platform that isn't arbitrarily crippled by a bloodsucking cellular provider or an arrogant hardware vendor. I currently have a T-Mobile G1 running Cyanogenmod, and I'd be hard pressed to take anything less from a cell phone operator at this point. They'd better wise up (fast) to the fact that people want Internet-aware general-purpose mobile computing, not cell phones, and that nickel-and-diming customers for basic services is a good way to lose them to the competition.
If *only* there were a freely available OS to us on phones that wasn't from Apple - hmmm
Most of Apple's iPhone and desktop OS is FOSS anyway: the Mach kernel, BSD libraries, the gcc compiler and runtime, and tons more.
True, but the GUI layer isn't, and that's what is most important from a typical user's perspective. Apple will defend that "intellectual property" to the death.
Further the notion that "the Apple brand is almost synonymous with free-thinking creativity" is about a decade out of date.
I spend most of my days in various professional recording studios video production houses and you see a lot fewer Macs than you used to.
Yes, well, let's face it, for postproduction work there's a lot of nice stuff out for Windows now ... the Mac edge in that area has been eroding steadily for a long time now. And render farms ... well, most of the ones I know about seem to be running Linux or some other Unix variant.
"customers are pragmatic about quality, and the open source and free software movements haven't produced anything remotely as useful as Mac OS X and the iPhone."
No.. they just created what runs on the them, that's all.. Meh.
Yeah. And let's not forget that Mac OS X and the iPhone run a Unix variant under the hood. I mean, it's not like Apple didn't play off the work of others. Plus which, it's people who are "pragmatic" about quality that run Windows ... it's people who are fanatic about a particular kind of quality that use Macs.
Me, I just want my operating system (whatever it is) to reliably run my applications. How's that for pragmatism?
I spend most of my days in various professional recording studios video production houses and you see a lot fewer Macs than you used to.
Funny, all the IT professionals and programmers I meet seem to be using MacBooks these days.
Which is entirely irrelevant. I'm an "IT Professional and programmer" and I carry a Thinkpad. Why? Because it's the best option for me, in order to best accomplish the tasks I set myself. Look, nobody is arguing that Apple's products have a lot going for them, so there's no need for you to defend them. What is being discussed is whether or not individuals who are part of a cult-like self-reinforcing hivemind can be considered "freethinking". Personally, I don't think so. If you're someone who rationally evaluated his or her computing requirements, looking at all the options, and then settled on a Mac as the best answer, well, bully for you. Like I said, Apple makes nice stuff. If, on the other hand, you simply bought a Mac because, in your view, there can be no other option, well ... as a child your parents must have given you mental blocks for Christmas. There is a world of computing beyond Apple Computer's current product line.
Whilst I sympathise, you're being rather melodramatic.
And you, my friend, are being remarkably unsympathetic. Having taken a similar sojourn through the American medical system with my father some years ago, and having dealt with the same level of near-lethal incompetence, believe me Mr. GButler69 is not being melodramatic. You have to watch your step when subjecting yourself to hospital care, especially if it involves any significant procedures. There's a lot of different ways to get screwed if you don't pay attention.
I would always look over the various agreements they want you to sign before surgery, and make specific edits. For example, I would strike out and initial any line on the order of "... to be performed by Dr. xxxx or his assigns." Sorry doctor, you're the one I picked because of your experience, and you don't get to toss in a less-competent substitute while you hit the golf course. If you can't make it for some reason, we expect you to re-schedule.
And if the US adopted a socialised healthcare service, you wouldn't have had to pay a thing.
The U.S. already has a socialized medical system. It's called "insurance companies". What ... you don't think the idea of everyone paying into the kitty and taking out when in need is socialist? Well, it is, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The problem is more one of implementation than principle: our system is very inefficient at converting health care dollars into actual health care, because there are too many middlemen picking off a share of our money. I mean, between the profit margins of the insurance companies themselves, the hospitals and clinics, doctors and support personnel and, of course, the manufacturers and suppliers of drugs, medical equipment and other products it's a wonder we get any care at all. Unfortunately, that's always going to be an issue when attempting to implement a socialized system at any level when dealing with a self-serving bureaucracy and an even more corrupt private sector. Remember, no matter what laws and regulatory burdens you impose, it is private sector organizations that actually provide the medical goods and services that we consume. It's been demonstrated rather conclusively that, given the disconnect between the cost of insurance-company-supplied medical care, and our ability to pay for it, said suppliers can and will charge whatever the hell they want.
Formally socializing health care under the auspices of the Federal Government will do nothing to change the underlying dishonesty that pervades the entire system. Does socialized medicine work well for other countries? Certainly it does, but that means nothing whatsoever when placed in the context of the United States' overarching central government. I agree, some nations can trust their bureaucrats, but we would be fools to do the same.
I'm an American citizen who applied for residency abroad and got the hell out.
So where did you go? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oceania, I would guess.
The bastard thing is that most in the US overpay their taxes by having a portion withdrawn from each paycheck. "Paying our taxes" is just telling them that they ripped us off during the year and we'd like the money back.
Otherwise known as the Uncle Sam Savings Plan.
I finally learned a productive response that has served me well for 20+ years: I draw a dependency diagram on a whiteboard, with all of the "completed" stuff in green, and all the "incomplete" stuff in red (redrawn in green as completed), and with our (even wildly optimistic) estimates for each.
That's a great idea, but it presumes that your "screamers" are merely misinformed and willing to listen to reason ... not completely irrational. I've dealt with both types, and the latter can be a real challenge, let me tell you. Show them all the charts you want, they won't believe you and figure that you're lying to them because you're just lazy.