Wait what ?? There's still people using Mac OS X beside Steve Jobs???
Yes, millions of users in fact. I work as a software developer on the windows platform (.NET) but I prefer to use Snow Leopard at home and several of my colleagues are mac users at home.
Maybe some IT people in windows workplaces like having something completely different from what they use in their workplace. Maybe some of us like to be able to keep our unix terminal skills sharp with scripts and hacks like Geektool but at the end of the day want an OS that "just works".
Right-click on a file/folder/drive, select properties and look at the tab "Previous Versions". If you are running Windows Vista/7 (except vista home basic), you'll be amazed.
Wow. That sounds really user friendly and obvious. Not! It also requires the user to be aware of Shadow copies and enable it. Finally, it is stored on the same bloody partition let alone same physical drive making it useless for disaster recovery.
It is not a replacement for time machine because backups belong on a separate drive which is preferably external to the computer. If anything, Shadow copies is a harder to use implementation of the "Versions" feature coming in OS X Lion and the easy to use "backup" service called Time machine will still be offered for disaster recovery and accidental deletion of files.
For the record, every copy of OS X install discs come with a GCC compiler so you are either ignorant of the OS X platform or you are just plain trolling.
If you can get that one wrong then I don't think your opinion of how you think other features work is worth very much or worth the time to for a rebuttal.
So, the new MacBook is going to be powered by the HTC phone Verizon won't let out of the gate? I've heard rumors about Apple / VZW collusion recently, but this is ridiculous!
Ba-dum-bump!
Sorry but what is an HTC phone and what is Verizon? I'm only being half sarcastic because to everyone outside the US, Verizon is irrelevant.
The mac mini is no server. It lacks even basic cheap server stuff, redundant PSUs, RAID array, etc.
Do you have any experience working in a modern enterprise environment? These days, many "servers" can be virtualized and the storage for servers (both virtual and physical is usually located off the server or server host (in the case of virtual). Many companies store the majority of their data on SAN devices. When you access a SQL database in a large enterprise, the data files that comprise that database might be off on a SAN somewhere rather than on the database server itself.
In environments with centralized storage, it is fairly easy to have a spare backup server to drop in in case one server dies or it can even be sitting powered down beside the failing server.
They make it impossible for anyone to find a way to file a complaint about their policies and some of their pages have threats of deleting your account if you ask the wrong question in the wrong place. What a bunch of first class a-holes.
Is is really that hard to have a feedback form? Do they really have to go around threatening to ban people for complaining in the wrong place?
Why do people like Android so much? People might call Apple arrogant but at least they have feedback forms and they don't threaten to ban people for asking questions.
Google is primarily driven by ad revenue so they will oppose anything that threatens their ability to make money on advertising and data mining your information.
All of those "free" services that Google offers are not actually free. You have to be willing to give up your freedom and anonymity to use them.
How about the ability to use VLC or other GPL programs (banned on iOS, OSX, and Microsoft "app stores")?
VLC was pulled off the app store because of a guy named Remi who also happens to work at Nokia demanded it be removed. He was the main developer and demanded the removal of VLC from the Appstore. The GPL is not incompatible with the appstore but Remi still retains copyright over the majority of the code so he had a right to request it pulled from the store. The GPL does not trump copyright.
How about applications implementing functionality that goes beyond what the OS developer thought of?
There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from reinventing a new and better wheel. You just cannot call iOS private APIs because they can change from one release to the next.
Your comment about APIs is framed badly; no API is perfect, and so rather than being denied access to the functionality of a broken or buggy method call, being able to work around it is better. How about being able to use programs written in more than one language?
You can use C/C++ and Objective C in the official app store. All of those are C based and can be compiled with the GCC compiler. What are you looking for exactly? If you cannot develop in any of those languages then you have no business developing for mobile platforms in the first place. I have had to work around a missing API in my day job and I hate having to do it because I know that I would have to do a major rewrite if we ever upgraded the software we are integrating with.
How about not needing asinine "jailbreaks" to get full hardware access?
End users care about VLC and Firefox. End users care about tethering. End users don't want to wait for a program to get translated completely into another language before it's ported (or wait for any reason, really). End users want to pick their own applications for certain tasks, just like on their desktop operating systems.
How are jailbreaks any different than rooting an Android phone? How do either apply to "end users"? They only apply to nerdy enthusiasts. VLC not being available is the result of the main developer not wanting it on the platform. Most end users are not clamoring for Firefox. The last I heard, it was buggy and slow.
A tablet is a laptop without a keyboard, with half the case of a laptop, without a hard drive, etc.
It's basically a motherboard and a screen in a case.
A more capable laptop, with all that other hardware, costs $300.
Do the numbers.
Wow. So those $300 dollar laptops have 10 hours of battery life when watching video, are powered by ARM processors, have IPS LCD panels with high quality capacitance touch digitizers and SSD flash storage? Do tell.
Tablets are currently closed systems for the most part.
Give me an open system and we'll talk.
What is there to to talk about? You don't seem to be the target demographic of tablets. "Open" brings nothing to the table for an end "user". Absolutely nothing. It also is no substitute for a rich and powerful API with deep access to OS functionality.
Speaking as a developer of enterprise systems, I would always prefer access to a complete API that allows me to do what I need to get done rather than having to rely partially on API calls and partially on direct calls to the internal database/private APIs. The main reason why you want to stick to a public API is that have a much higher chance having your code break when a update or new version comes a long when you access unexposed internals than sticking with the public API.
Open systems tend to encourage programmer laziness on the part of both the third party developers and developers of the platform and end users end up suffering because of it with bugs and incompatibilities when a new update is released.
I keep on seeing claims without evidence that this effects kindle books purchased outside of the app but as far as I can see, it only effects paid digital subs where you are required to also offer in app subs if you use the app to drive traffic to digital subs. If you offer free digital subs to supplement dead tree ones then it does not effect your app. It also does not appear to effect the Kindle app either since they do not offer access to subscriptions in any Kindle apps. The Amazon subs only seem to work with the Kindle hardware.
Please prove me wrong but citation other than another slashdot article is needed.
I would change the order: 1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER) 2. Protect the authorized user. 3. Protect itself.
I would change it slightly differently:
1. Obey the authorized user if, after (non-verbosely but with option of expanded explanation) warning him of issues with laws 2 or 3, he says he really means it.
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.
4. Obey the authorized user.*
*Only if said action occurs on a device without an active cellular network connection or with a cell network where the action does not potentially harm the network or any other users of the network.
I love my Android but, its no surprise that the maker would prioritize protection above obedience. I would change the order: 1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER) 2. Protect the authorized user. 3. Protect itself.
Different orders can be considered when they become self aware. Until then, its a tool damnit. My hammer doesn't try to protect me, nor would I want it to. A safety on a gun may "protect me" but, the device definitely obeys before protects, because all the user needs to do is turn off the safety, and all protection is gone.
As the user/owner of a non-self aware device, it should obey me, even if my intention is to use it to destroy itself, or others.
That is fine as long as it is a WIFI only device but as soon as it uses the cellular network then you are now out in the public and you can potentially not only harm yourself but others and the network that you share.
No, they dropped h.264 because right now their browser is trending upward, and they see a way to grab an edge versus both Apple and Microsoft.
Which overall would be a good thing for the consumer at this point in time.
No, I don't kid myself as to the motives of Google, MS and Apple. But clearly WebM is working in our favor, and that is reason enough why we should support it. It's blatantly obvious that MS provides the plugin for Chrome, not as a gesture of friendship, but to consolidate h.264's grasp on internet-video.
Really, why anyone not affiliated with MS would support h.264 is beyond me.
Sorry but explain this too me. How, as a consumer, does this benefit me? In what way does pushing a proprietary format owned exclusively by Google make my life easier? How am I supposed to encode my videos in that format from iMovie?
With H264, I can either encode in MP4 format directly from my camera or encode through an editor like iMovie. With this google format, I would have to download an "open source" command line tool (assuming it is even available for OS X), encode my video in a format that tool understands and then run the tool to create the google format and manually upload it to the web.
Again, please explain to me how this makes my life easier or better.
Google has no power over WebM. The format has already been decided on, and anyone is free to use it however they please. You can even fork it and make a new closed codec based on WebM.
You Microsoft shills crack me up.
Speaking of FUD, look at your message. Google owns the format. They bought it from a company and then later released code to implement the format as "open source". No license can remove the rights of Google to the format or the code they released. It is still copyright "Google Inc". They are free to close the source again or even change the format spec because it is not a standard. It is a format that Google owns.
Are you a mobile engineer? No? Then why should anyone trust you to compile the firmware of a cellular phone network device?
You do realise that there is ZERO difference between your smart phone and a regular Linux PC with a modem dongle with open source drivers. They make the modem a little less trusting than you are implying.
Wow. I'm not a mobile engineer but I do work as a software developer of client/server systems so I can take an educated guess that you are not a mobile engineer. If you made a statement like that in an interview at a handset maker be it Android based or not, I can guarantee that you would not be called back for another interview.
I assume that Android has an open source "core" and the radio firmware drivers are binary blobs licensed for the OEMs of the chipsets or they interface with read only firmware that are not part of the Android "open source" source tree. You can recompile the core all you want but in the end, the low level stuff is not there for you to tinker with.
And yet, being an omniscient* being, He knew in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from that tree he put there. *Depending on who you ask.
That really depends on whether free will creates the possibility of many possible futures. An omniscient god who created man with free will would know of every possible future. In the case of the tree test, there were two possible futures.
Do you deny that an all knowing god would not have a "plan b" ready? Without free will man is just biological automaton with no sentience.
Are you serious? Really? His comparison was hateful. He can believe or not believe whatever he wishes but why did he go out of the way to post in a story that he does not care about? Why did you bother to post? Do you go around attacking the beliefs of other people in "real" life? No? Then why post here?
The only real sin is still believing in god in the 21th century.
No the real sin is that racism and bigotry still exists in the 21st century. How about you grow up already and live you own damn life? Nobody is holding a gun to your head to believe in god. Your "freedoms" end at the end of your nose.
Or to put it in terms that you might understand, your rights are not superior to the rights of another. Just as I cannot force you to shut up or change your mind about god, in the same way, you cannot force another person to shut up about god or stop believing. You could live a much happier life if you let other people live in peace.
As I keep saying, if God didn't want me to covet my neighbour's ass, He wouldn't have given her such a magnificent ass;)
You sure ? After all this is the guy who put a fruit tree in the middle of a garden and put a "do not eat" sign on it. He's a bit of dick like that.
Wow. Really? You have a pretty messed up view of god there pal. You also don't seem to believe in personal responsibility. Man was given a paradise to live in with all the food he could ever eat, immortality, a wife, the peace of mind of naivety with just one simple rule. Not 10 commandment but just one and man still had to screw that one up.
32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.
The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.
That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?
No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.
If you intend on activating a data plan and staying on that data plan then, yes the price is not inflated but what if you wanted a cellular model but did not want to activate right away? With the Xoom, you are forced to activate whereas with the iPad 3G, you can buy one and activate it later. Outside of the US at least, you can go month to month so that you can activate it for a month, cancel, then activate it again a few months later in the country you bought it or some other country.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait what ?? There's still people using Mac OS X beside Steve Jobs???
Yes, millions of users in fact. I work as a software developer on the windows platform (.NET) but I prefer to use Snow Leopard at home and several of my colleagues are mac users at home.
Maybe some IT people in windows workplaces like having something completely different from what they use in their workplace. Maybe some of us like to be able to keep our unix terminal skills sharp with scripts and hacks like Geektool but at the end of the day want an OS that "just works".
Right-click on a file/folder/drive, select properties and look at the tab "Previous Versions". If you are running Windows Vista/7 (except vista home basic), you'll be amazed.
Wow. That sounds really user friendly and obvious. Not! It also requires the user to be aware of Shadow copies and enable it. Finally, it is stored on the same bloody partition let alone same physical drive making it useless for disaster recovery.
It is not a replacement for time machine because backups belong on a separate drive which is preferably external to the computer. If anything, Shadow copies is a harder to use implementation of the "Versions" feature coming in OS X Lion and the easy to use "backup" service called Time machine will still be offered for disaster recovery and accidental deletion of files.
For the record, every copy of OS X install discs come with a GCC compiler so you are either ignorant of the OS X platform or you are just plain trolling.
If you can get that one wrong then I don't think your opinion of how you think other features work is worth very much or worth the time to for a rebuttal.
So, the new MacBook is going to be powered by the HTC phone Verizon won't let out of the gate? I've heard rumors about Apple / VZW collusion recently, but this is ridiculous!
Ba-dum-bump!
Sorry but what is an HTC phone and what is Verizon? I'm only being half sarcastic because to everyone outside the US, Verizon is irrelevant.
I still miss the speed with which I could update my 2g iPod over firewire. USB 2.0 is so unsatisfactory.
I was also very much hoping for an eSATA connector. Not pretty enough I guess.
Of course, it's not like I'm going to buy any other machine. Stupid sexy Fland--I mean Apple.
Uh. Thunderbolt is faster than eSATA let alone USB 3.0.
The mac mini is no server. It lacks even basic cheap server stuff, redundant PSUs, RAID array, etc.
Do you have any experience working in a modern enterprise environment? These days, many "servers" can be virtualized and the storage for servers (both virtual and physical is usually located off the server or server host (in the case of virtual). Many companies store the majority of their data on SAN devices. When you access a SQL database in a large enterprise, the data files that comprise that database might be off on a SAN somewhere rather than on the database server itself.
In environments with centralized storage, it is fairly easy to have a spare backup server to drop in in case one server dies or it can even be sitting powered down beside the failing server.
They make it impossible for anyone to find a way to file a complaint about their policies and some of their pages have threats of deleting your account if you ask the wrong question in the wrong place. What a bunch of first class a-holes.
Is is really that hard to have a feedback form? Do they really have to go around threatening to ban people for complaining in the wrong place?
Why do people like Android so much? People might call Apple arrogant but at least they have feedback forms and they don't threaten to ban people for asking questions.
Google is primarily driven by ad revenue so they will oppose anything that threatens their ability to make money on advertising and data mining your information.
All of those "free" services that Google offers are not actually free. You have to be willing to give up your freedom and anonymity to use them.
How about the ability to use VLC or other GPL programs (banned on iOS, OSX, and Microsoft "app stores")?
VLC was pulled off the app store because of a guy named Remi who also happens to work at Nokia demanded it be removed. He was the main developer and demanded the removal of VLC from the Appstore. The GPL is not incompatible with the appstore but Remi still retains copyright over the majority of the code so he had a right to request it pulled from the store. The GPL does not trump copyright.
How about applications implementing functionality that goes beyond what the OS developer thought of?
There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from reinventing a new and better wheel. You just cannot call iOS private APIs because they can change from one release to the next.
Your comment about APIs is framed badly; no API is perfect, and so rather than being denied access to the functionality of a broken or buggy method call, being able to work around it is better. How about being able to use programs written in more than one language?
You can use C/C++ and Objective C in the official app store. All of those are C based and can be compiled with the GCC compiler. What are you looking for exactly? If you cannot develop in any of those languages then you have no business developing for mobile platforms in the first place. I have had to work around a missing API in my day job and I hate having to do it because I know that I would have to do a major rewrite if we ever upgraded the software we are integrating with.
How about not needing asinine "jailbreaks" to get full hardware access?
End users care about VLC and Firefox. End users care about tethering. End users don't want to wait for a program to get translated completely into another language before it's ported (or wait for any reason, really). End users want to pick their own applications for certain tasks, just like on their desktop operating systems.
How are jailbreaks any different than rooting an Android phone? How do either apply to "end users"? They only apply to nerdy enthusiasts. VLC not being available is the result of the main developer not wanting it on the platform. Most end users are not clamoring for Firefox. The last I heard, it was buggy and slow.
A tablet is a laptop without a keyboard, with half the case of a laptop, without a hard drive, etc.
It's basically a motherboard and a screen in a case.
A more capable laptop, with all that other hardware, costs $300.
Do the numbers.
Wow. So those $300 dollar laptops have 10 hours of battery life when watching video, are powered by ARM processors, have IPS LCD panels with high quality capacitance touch digitizers and SSD flash storage? Do tell.
Except this article is largely about how new technology is expensive, but prices are *rising*.
OMG. Amazing isn't it? It's called inflation and the devaluation of the US dollar. When both happen, Americans end up paying more for imported goods.
Tablets are currently closed systems for the most part.
Give me an open system and we'll talk.
What is there to to talk about? You don't seem to be the target demographic of tablets. "Open" brings nothing to the table for an end "user". Absolutely nothing. It also is no substitute for a rich and powerful API with deep access to OS functionality.
Speaking as a developer of enterprise systems, I would always prefer access to a complete API that allows me to do what I need to get done rather than having to rely partially on API calls and partially on direct calls to the internal database/private APIs. The main reason why you want to stick to a public API is that have a much higher chance having your code break when a update or new version comes a long when you access unexposed internals than sticking with the public API.
Open systems tend to encourage programmer laziness on the part of both the third party developers and developers of the platform and end users end up suffering because of it with bugs and incompatibilities when a new update is released.
I keep on seeing claims without evidence that this effects kindle books purchased outside of the app but as far as I can see, it only effects paid digital subs where you are required to also offer in app subs if you use the app to drive traffic to digital subs. If you offer free digital subs to supplement dead tree ones then it does not effect your app. It also does not appear to effect the Kindle app either since they do not offer access to subscriptions in any Kindle apps. The Amazon subs only seem to work with the Kindle hardware.
Please prove me wrong but citation other than another slashdot article is needed.
I would change the order:
1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.
I would change it slightly differently:
1. Obey the authorized user if, after (non-verbosely but with option of expanded explanation) warning him of issues with laws 2 or 3, he says he really means it.
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.
4. Obey the authorized user.*
*Only if said action occurs on a device without an active cellular network connection or with a cell network where the action does not potentially harm the network or any other users of the network.
I love my Android but, its no surprise that the maker would prioritize protection above obedience. I would change the order:
1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.
Different orders can be considered when they become self aware. Until then, its a tool damnit. My hammer doesn't try to protect me, nor would I want it to. A safety on a gun may "protect me" but, the device definitely obeys before protects, because all the user needs to do is turn off the safety, and all protection is gone.
As the user/owner of a non-self aware device, it should obey me, even if my intention is to use it to destroy itself, or others.
That is fine as long as it is a WIFI only device but as soon as it uses the cellular network then you are now out in the public and you can potentially not only harm yourself but others and the network that you share.
No, they dropped h.264 because right now their browser is trending upward, and they see a way to grab an edge versus both Apple and Microsoft.
Which overall would be a good thing for the consumer at this point in time.
No, I don't kid myself as to the motives of Google, MS and Apple. But clearly WebM is working in our favor, and that is reason enough why we should support it. It's blatantly obvious that MS provides the plugin for Chrome, not as a gesture of friendship, but to consolidate h.264's grasp on internet-video.
Really, why anyone not affiliated with MS would support h.264 is beyond me.
Sorry but explain this too me. How, as a consumer, does this benefit me? In what way does pushing a proprietary format owned exclusively by Google make my life easier? How am I supposed to encode my videos in that format from iMovie?
With H264, I can either encode in MP4 format directly from my camera or encode through an editor like iMovie. With this google format, I would have to download an "open source" command line tool (assuming it is even available for OS X), encode my video in a format that tool understands and then run the tool to create the google format and manually upload it to the web.
Again, please explain to me how this makes my life easier or better.
Your comment is nothing but dishonest FUD.
Google has no power over WebM. The format has already been decided on, and anyone is free to use it however they please. You can even fork it and make a new closed codec based on WebM.
You Microsoft shills crack me up.
Speaking of FUD, look at your message. Google owns the format. They bought it from a company and then later released code to implement the format as "open source". No license can remove the rights of Google to the format or the code they released. It is still copyright "Google Inc". They are free to close the source again or even change the format spec because it is not a standard. It is a format that Google owns.
Are you a mobile engineer? No? Then why should anyone trust you to compile the firmware of a cellular phone network device?
You do realise that there is ZERO difference between your smart phone and a regular Linux PC with a modem dongle with open source drivers. They make the modem a little less trusting than you are implying.
Wow. I'm not a mobile engineer but I do work as a software developer of client/server systems so I can take an educated guess that you are not a mobile engineer. If you made a statement like that in an interview at a handset maker be it Android based or not, I can guarantee that you would not be called back for another interview.
I assume that Android has an open source "core" and the radio firmware drivers are binary blobs licensed for the OEMs of the chipsets or they interface with read only firmware that are not part of the Android "open source" source tree. You can recompile the core all you want but in the end, the low level stuff is not there for you to tinker with.
It lets me do whatever I want?
Cool, please link to the iOS source so I may build my own kernel for my future iphone.
Are you a mobile engineer? No? Then why should anyone trust you to compile the firmware of a cellular phone network device?
Here is some source from iOS:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/ios-40/
If you want to contribute to not only the future of iOS but all platforms that use webkit, contact the guys over at:
http://webkit.org/
And yet, being an omniscient* being, He knew in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from that tree he put there.
*Depending on who you ask.
That really depends on whether free will creates the possibility of many possible futures. An omniscient god who created man with free will would know of every possible future. In the case of the tree test, there were two possible futures.
Do you deny that an all knowing god would not have a "plan b" ready? Without free will man is just biological automaton with no sentience.
You do realize that you are posting one interpretation as it was indisputable truth don't you? So... we are all supposed to just agree with you?
Are you serious? Really? His comparison was hateful. He can believe or not believe whatever he wishes but why did he go out of the way to post in a story that he does not care about? Why did you bother to post? Do you go around attacking the beliefs of other people in "real" life? No? Then why post here?
Your use of hyperbole reveals your bias.
The only real sin is still believing in god in the 21th century.
No the real sin is that racism and bigotry still exists in the 21st century. How about you grow up already and live you own damn life? Nobody is holding a gun to your head to believe in god. Your "freedoms" end at the end of your nose.
Or to put it in terms that you might understand, your rights are not superior to the rights of another. Just as I cannot force you to shut up or change your mind about god, in the same way, you cannot force another person to shut up about god or stop believing. You could live a much happier life if you let other people live in peace.
As I keep saying, if God didn't want me to covet my neighbour's ass, He wouldn't have given her such a magnificent ass ;)
You sure ? After all this is the guy who put a fruit tree in the middle of a garden and put a "do not eat" sign on it. He's a bit of dick like that.
Wow. Really? You have a pretty messed up view of god there pal. You also don't seem to believe in personal responsibility. Man was given a paradise to live in with all the food he could ever eat, immortality, a wife, the peace of mind of naivety with just one simple rule. Not 10 commandment but just one and man still had to screw that one up.
I'm not familiar with your math.
32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.
The iPad 3G model does not require activation on a particular network and it can be used with micro sim from any carrier around the world that supports it whereas that 800 dollar Xoom tablet "REQUIRES" cellular data activation.
That requirement adds a bit to the price don't you think?
No, it doesn't add to the price at all if you buy both under the same circumstances. Looks like the US is getting screwed with the XOOM the same way they did with the iphone...likely international customers will be fine.
If you intend on activating a data plan and staying on that data plan then, yes the price is not inflated but what if you wanted a cellular model but did not want to activate right away? With the Xoom, you are forced to activate whereas with the iPad 3G, you can buy one and activate it later. Outside of the US at least, you can go month to month so that you can activate it for a month, cancel, then activate it again a few months later in the country you bought it or some other country.