I wouldn't say "the app has been pulled for using a private framework" was opaque to me, I'd say that was pretty clear, especially since it's spelled out very clearly in the dev information.
The way the weasly summary was written, with a clear anti-Apple slant, made it look like the fact that the apps were Wifi-stumblers was the reason they were pulled, knowing that no one on slashdot would read the article itself. That's where the opaque vagueness is coming from.
That's about as likely as a slashdot user reading the article.
There is no evidence to suggest, and if fact the opposite is really the case) that Apple are going to move their main computers to the iPhone OS.
Just because the iPhone and iPad feature a closed, walled garden approach does not mean that the rest of the hardware is going to follow suit. They are different products.
Microsoft's control over the Xbox360 platform is pretty closed - that means that they are going to make Windows 7 just like that! I know it's true! Someone on slashdot said it!
Unfortunately the one downside to manual transmission is that it makes it hard to talk on your cellphone, update your facebook status, eat a burrito and drink a 42oz Mountain Dew at the same time.
I can't find the handbrake, but I think you should take that one back - they installed the steering wheel on the wrong side! So much for quality control!
Don't you find that having to go to the store, to the soccer field, to the dance practice, back to a different store and then via a KFC offsets all that slipstreaming you did?
As several people have pointed out, people have been driving heavy cars without PAS for a long time, and even if it fails on you, the faster the car is moving the easier it is to steer. I bet you would be totally unable to determine whether the assist was working at highway speeds.
(and yes, I did drive a non-assisted car for nearly 10 years).
The normal footbrakes work just fine without vacuum assist - it's not like they suddenly cease to function, you just don't get a boost from the engine so you have to push a bit harder with your foot is all.
I also drove a car with no PAS for many years (quite a heavy one in fact). PAS as standard equipment on cars is a relatively new phenomenon - people were manhandling vehicles without it for years. With the car moving forward you will barely notice the PAS pump has stopped unless you really pull hard on the wheel.
Age doesn't *necessarily* make code insecure, but in the case of a large portion of the Windows codebase it does - not through malice or poor code itself, but just through poor maturing. you can't build a house on top of a poor foundation. While the code worked fine for what it did, it was just never designed to be developed in quite the way it has.
The decision by any company to evaluate its products and decide to move in a new direction if its needs are better met is not a poor reflection. Endlessly sticking to one path, regardless of problems would be the poor reflection. This was the same issue that Apple faced with the move from 68k to PPC and then again to Intel. All the moves were painful, but necessary.
I'm also talking about a fundamental change to the OS in a much larger way than the change to the NT kernel - there are substantial portions of Windows that have not changed, and are the poorer for it (hence all the holes - some of this stuff was written before we even knew what computer security was, and is either hard to secure or just not really built to be locked up).
I also remember using W2K, which used the NT kernel - I believe I got this via my university though, not sure if it was ever available to consumers.
I am also interested that you think using BSD code is "resorting to other's works" like it's some sort of cop out. Like I said before, there is substantial back-play into the OSS community, and the decision to base OS X on Unix has meant that is is remarkably more compatible with a lot of software than it would have been otherwise.
You seem dead set on this idea that they somehow "chickened out" of doing serious work to build OS X, when I assure you it was no mean feat, BSD base or otherwise.
There were very specific reasons why Apple stopped using the OS9 code - problems that MS has been facing in the many years since as it tries to hang onto all of its legacy code.
You can't turn this into a "too pathetic to use their own code" argument - the break from OS9 to OS X was a huge step and required a huge amount of work. They maintained the Classic environment for a long time after the break to provide backwards compatibility for old apps (and dual booting for a time).
OS X *was* a huge step forward, and Apple are well aware (and make no attempts to hide the fact) that is built on top of Darwin - a core system they continue to develop (and that has seen much benefit since Apple adopted it for OS X). It's not like they have called the core system done, they are continuing to work on it, and OSS projects that also use it (as well as many that don't) continue to benefit from that development. Isn't that one of the benefits of OSS? Mutual benefit for both parties.
I have seen comments on/. before about how MS really needs to do what Apple did and just start fresh with Windows and stop patching on top of patches - citing security and the age and complexity of the code as a problem. Whether that's the right thing to do is another matter, but it's not as cut and dried as you make out.
It's also not like Apple just grabbed some source code and replaced the word "Darwin" with "OS X" and put it in a box - a substantial amount of work has gone into making it the OS it is today, from its beginnings as NextStep.
Sometimes you just have to know when it's time to let your 17-year mature-but-dead-end product go and start again. This is not "the failure to use your own R&D and instead rely on someone else's" - it was a development decision for the future of the Mac platform.
If you think that the continued development of OS9 was the way forward at the time then you are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses - it really was ready to be put out to pasture.
Well, unlike you, he's not in a position to definitively conclude the outcome of a giant multinational corporation based on a single lawsuit, so he's not calling it either way.
That would be the BSD licence which allows *exactly* that.
Also "only geeks know OS X is a cut-n-paste job" - perhaps only 'geeks' like yourself who clearly know nothing about it. Where's your Unix-based OS if it was such a cut and paste job?
They also don't hide the fact that it is a Unix core underneath, or that is is built on OSS - they actively promote the OSS portions, and are, to this day, releasing new material into the OSS community based on their work on OS X. Tell me, where would you start if you were going to create an OS? Would you write literally everything from scratch, or would you use all that lovely, mature, licence-compatible BSD code?
Apple are also not claiming it is "theirs" - just go and look at the OS X pages and the Developer pages on the Apple site.
Your post is poorly written, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding (either through ignorance or deliberate FUD) of the BSD licence and the nature of the promotion of the core of OS X by Apple.
And *this* (ie, your post) is what's called "inferring 'facts' from made up posts on slashdot, that will later be used as "facts" in other Apple articles.
None of the Apollo landing sites were anywhere near the poles. It's more complex (or more fuel dependent) to go into a polar orbit from my understanding, making it tough to put a human-occupied lander there (compared to putting it down near the equator).
I apologise for the misstep - where I'm from the term special needs is pretty much only in reference to one thing.
Either way on the hardware, you can get OS X running - pretty much any reasonable generation intel box will run OS X with some tinkering.
OS X itself seems to be taking a little negative press by association with the iPhone and iPad. The two OSes are related, but have completely different goals.
I think you'll find OS X to be at the very least as "open" as Windows is (in terms of what you can do with it), without some of the Win baggage. It's just not the same as iPhone OS with a fixed ecosystem, one-stop-app-shop, un-modifiable components.
I think you'd discover that OS X doesn't lock you in quite as much as you think it might (although it's clearly not as completely open as Linux, obviously).
Stick it on a hackintosh and have at it. You can pick up a copy of Snow Leopard from $29 (although it's technically an upgrade licence from 10.5, it is a full install DVD).
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say "the app has been pulled for using a private framework" was opaque to me, I'd say that was pretty clear, especially since it's spelled out very clearly in the dev information.
The way the weasly summary was written, with a clear anti-Apple slant, made it look like the fact that the apps were Wifi-stumblers was the reason they were pulled, knowing that no one on slashdot would read the article itself. That's where the opaque vagueness is coming from.
That's about as likely as a slashdot user reading the article.
There is no evidence to suggest, and if fact the opposite is really the case) that Apple are going to move their main computers to the iPhone OS.
Just because the iPhone and iPad feature a closed, walled garden approach does not mean that the rest of the hardware is going to follow suit. They are different products.
Microsoft's control over the Xbox360 platform is pretty closed - that means that they are going to make Windows 7 just like that! I know it's true! Someone on slashdot said it!
Why is it necessarily samba? If it's an all-Mac office, it could be AFP.
Unfortunately the one downside to manual transmission is that it makes it hard to talk on your cellphone, update your facebook status, eat a burrito and drink a 42oz Mountain Dew at the same time.
I can't find the handbrake, but I think you should take that one back - they installed the steering wheel on the wrong side! So much for quality control!
Don't you find that having to go to the store, to the soccer field, to the dance practice, back to a different store and then via a KFC offsets all that slipstreaming you did?
As several people have pointed out, people have been driving heavy cars without PAS for a long time, and even if it fails on you, the faster the car is moving the easier it is to steer. I bet you would be totally unable to determine whether the assist was working at highway speeds.
(and yes, I did drive a non-assisted car for nearly 10 years).
The normal footbrakes work just fine without vacuum assist - it's not like they suddenly cease to function, you just don't get a boost from the engine so you have to push a bit harder with your foot is all.
I also drove a car with no PAS for many years (quite a heavy one in fact). PAS as standard equipment on cars is a relatively new phenomenon - people were manhandling vehicles without it for years. With the car moving forward you will barely notice the PAS pump has stopped unless you really pull hard on the wheel.
It looked like a smoking wreck of a server under the /. effect?
And those fancy carbon ceramic brakes don't work *unless* they are hot. They are pretty hopeless for everyday motoring.
Age doesn't *necessarily* make code insecure, but in the case of a large portion of the Windows codebase it does - not through malice or poor code itself, but just through poor maturing. you can't build a house on top of a poor foundation. While the code worked fine for what it did, it was just never designed to be developed in quite the way it has.
The decision by any company to evaluate its products and decide to move in a new direction if its needs are better met is not a poor reflection. Endlessly sticking to one path, regardless of problems would be the poor reflection. This was the same issue that Apple faced with the move from 68k to PPC and then again to Intel. All the moves were painful, but necessary.
Take a look at the BSD code inside Windows then.
I'm also talking about a fundamental change to the OS in a much larger way than the change to the NT kernel - there are substantial portions of Windows that have not changed, and are the poorer for it (hence all the holes - some of this stuff was written before we even knew what computer security was, and is either hard to secure or just not really built to be locked up).
I also remember using W2K, which used the NT kernel - I believe I got this via my university though, not sure if it was ever available to consumers.
I am also interested that you think using BSD code is "resorting to other's works" like it's some sort of cop out. Like I said before, there is substantial back-play into the OSS community, and the decision to base OS X on Unix has meant that is is remarkably more compatible with a lot of software than it would have been otherwise.
You seem dead set on this idea that they somehow "chickened out" of doing serious work to build OS X, when I assure you it was no mean feat, BSD base or otherwise.
There were very specific reasons why Apple stopped using the OS9 code - problems that MS has been facing in the many years since as it tries to hang onto all of its legacy code.
You can't turn this into a "too pathetic to use their own code" argument - the break from OS9 to OS X was a huge step and required a huge amount of work. They maintained the Classic environment for a long time after the break to provide backwards compatibility for old apps (and dual booting for a time).
OS X *was* a huge step forward, and Apple are well aware (and make no attempts to hide the fact) that is built on top of Darwin - a core system they continue to develop (and that has seen much benefit since Apple adopted it for OS X). It's not like they have called the core system done, they are continuing to work on it, and OSS projects that also use it (as well as many that don't) continue to benefit from that development. Isn't that one of the benefits of OSS? Mutual benefit for both parties.
I have seen comments on /. before about how MS really needs to do what Apple did and just start fresh with Windows and stop patching on top of patches - citing security and the age and complexity of the code as a problem. Whether that's the right thing to do is another matter, but it's not as cut and dried as you make out.
It's also not like Apple just grabbed some source code and replaced the word "Darwin" with "OS X" and put it in a box - a substantial amount of work has gone into making it the OS it is today, from its beginnings as NextStep.
Sometimes you just have to know when it's time to let your 17-year mature-but-dead-end product go and start again. This is not "the failure to use your own R&D and instead rely on someone else's" - it was a development decision for the future of the Mac platform.
If you think that the continued development of OS9 was the way forward at the time then you are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses - it really was ready to be put out to pasture.
Mr russlar,
I have history on the phone for you, saying something about accuracy....
Well, unlike you, he's not in a position to definitively conclude the outcome of a giant multinational corporation based on a single lawsuit, so he's not calling it either way.
That would be the BSD licence which allows *exactly* that.
Also "only geeks know OS X is a cut-n-paste job" - perhaps only 'geeks' like yourself who clearly know nothing about it. Where's your Unix-based OS if it was such a cut and paste job?
They also don't hide the fact that it is a Unix core underneath, or that is is built on OSS - they actively promote the OSS portions, and are, to this day, releasing new material into the OSS community based on their work on OS X. Tell me, where would you start if you were going to create an OS? Would you write literally everything from scratch, or would you use all that lovely, mature, licence-compatible BSD code?
Apple are also not claiming it is "theirs" - just go and look at the OS X pages and the Developer pages on the Apple site.
Your post is poorly written, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding (either through ignorance or deliberate FUD) of the BSD licence and the nature of the promotion of the core of OS X by Apple.
And *this* (ie, your post) is what's called "inferring 'facts' from made up posts on slashdot, that will later be used as "facts" in other Apple articles.
That Jobs "quote" is no such thing.
This post brought to you by the " symbol.
None of the Apollo landing sites were anywhere near the poles. It's more complex (or more fuel dependent) to go into a polar orbit from my understanding, making it tough to put a human-occupied lander there (compared to putting it down near the equator).
I'm prejudiced about any study that claims conclusive proof, regardless of the outcome.
He is claiming conclusive proof, which means I don't even have to read it to know it's total garbage - it's not science.
He says "conclusively proven" = agenda.
Move on here, nothing to see.
Oh I don't know... try almost any modern window, car body panels, ductwork etc - anything made of polycarbonate, HDPE, UHMWPE...
Not all plastics are untreated, basic PVC or supercheap plastic used in drinks bottles.
Because inertial guidance is so easy to jam....
I apologise for the misstep - where I'm from the term special needs is pretty much only in reference to one thing.
Either way on the hardware, you can get OS X running - pretty much any reasonable generation intel box will run OS X with some tinkering.
OS X itself seems to be taking a little negative press by association with the iPhone and iPad. The two OSes are related, but have completely different goals.
I think you'll find OS X to be at the very least as "open" as Windows is (in terms of what you can do with it), without some of the Win baggage. It's just not the same as iPhone OS with a fixed ecosystem, one-stop-app-shop, un-modifiable components.
I think you'd discover that OS X doesn't lock you in quite as much as you think it might (although it's clearly not as completely open as Linux, obviously).
Stick it on a hackintosh and have at it. You can pick up a copy of Snow Leopard from $29 (although it's technically an upgrade licence from 10.5, it is a full install DVD).
That's textbook lift-off oversteer.