Why can't it be SSL? Because the Apple WebDAV client DOESN'T WORK OVER SSL.
Interestingly, this means it's easy to set up Apple's WebDAV server on MacOS X Server such that Apple's WebDAV client can't connect to it, but the Windows WebDAV client(s) can.
Apple operates the biggest movie trailer website on the internet and the most popular legal music download service. I don't think that Apple is hurting for bandwidth.
Actually, you'll find that Akamai hosts both the biggest movie trailer web site on the internet AND the most popular legal music download service.
Whereas Apple actually hosts their own.Mac service. It's a lot more complex than a simple download service.
So no, there is really no crossover at all. And ability to do one does not imply in any way the ability to do the other.
I bought a PowerMac G4 Cube a few months ago to do this. Low power, no noise, and everything I needed was there and mostly set up by default. The firewall needs a bit of tugging on, but, well, such is life. The Windows file sharing works wonderfully.
Plus, I can either lock it in the closet or leave it out on my living room table as a conversation piece. ('What's that? It's cute!' 'Oh, that's my web server.')
Notice that Adobe has dropped Premiere for Mac. Why did they do that? There are two reasons: First, like it or not, Windows has become an acceptable platform for digital video work, which makes it an important market for Adobe.
That is clearly not a reason to dump Mac support. That is merely a precondition to it.
Second, Apple decided to compete head-to-head with Premiere by developing the Final Cut Pro product. Perhaps they felt the need to do this to further differentiate the Mac from their PC competition once Premiere ran on both platforms, but the net result is that Apple pushed a top-tier ISV off their platform by shoving in to an already small Mac software market.
Actually, let's get a little history in here. Rewind to 1998. Things were looking bleak for Apple. Adobe had made no public announcements, but privately they were telling people that now that more than 50% of their sales were of Windows versions of software, it wouldn't be long before they could just dispense with Mac versions altogether.
It showed. Premiere 5 for the Mac was buggy, slow, and lacked quite a number of features that the Windows version had. It was, in fact, unusable compared to the Windows version. How did that happen? Who knows. But it was garbage, and Adobe cheerfully blamed Apple for it and pushed for all of their biggest customers to switch over entirely to Windows.
Would Apple have released FCP without this little impetus? Perhaps it would have. But the question doesn't arise: the need was there, and Apple followed through with it. So don't blame Apple for Adobe's failings. Apple has done enough blameworthy stuff over the years to have plenty to answer for, no need to add things that other companies brought on themselves.
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
Uh... yeaaaaah. That's why it works so well with MPEG, MPEG2, and MPEG4. They're just trying to trick you into using it so that then you'll start using their proprietary codecs. It actually inserts subliminal messages: uuuuuse soooooorenson... uuuuuse sooooorenson...
That's a lovely idea. But since the company is named Apple, and iTunes belong to them, then by definition they are selling music, using iTunes, with the Apple brand. The only way around it would be to sell iTMS.
I suspect that even if iTMS were spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary, they would still be engaging in selling music using the Apple brand.
So either they completely get rid of iTMS, they give Apple Music their asking price for use of the brand to sell music (which was rumored to be more than 4 billion plus royalties for every song sold... basically, 'give us ALL of your money, plus royalties'), or they break the law.
MiB and KiB and so forth were invented by apologists for the hard drive industry, so that they could get away with misrepresenting the size of their drives.
Measuring anything on a computer in decimal is just plain stupid. Overloading 'mega-' and 'kilo-' as meaning 1024 * 1024 and 1024 when used in computer terms is only confusing to those who deliberately wish it to be so.
I lie, it looks like you don't even need QTSS for that size audience. QTB can probably do it, unless you're looking for a really high-res stream. I've never tried it that way, though, for more than one client at a time, though.
I love all the people here who are saying 'Use QuickTime Streaming Server (or Darwin Streaming Server)!' Most or all of whom have never done what the person is asking about, I suspect.
It sure sounds to me like they want a live-compression-and-broadcasting tool. QTSS only broadcasts hinted movies (movies that have been prepared for broadcast by QuickTime Pro or one of the other tools designed to do that). It can't take in a video source and broadcast video out the back end.
For that you need QuickTime Broadcaster (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/broadcast er/) and QTSS together. Once you have them, though, things just work, fairly seamlessly. And you can (and by default do) transmit good-quality standard MPEG-4, which can be read by any MPEG-4 player. Or you can choose any other codec, and the stream can still be read by any player that supports RTP/RTSP. (Which are, of course, open standards.)
And it's all free. And it's really easy to set up.
'Data' is a collective noun, not a normal plural. Which in the United States is treated as singular and in the UK as plural. You can be dogmatic about it if you like, but that's how Strunk & White plays it, and that's how it's been, by and large, for 100 years in the US.
The class is on a field trip. (US) The class are on a field trip. (UK)
The herd is stampeding. (US) The herd are stampeding. (UK)
The data is inconclusive. (US) The data are inconclusive. (UK)
It does work. It's pointing to a directory. You click on it, and Safari grabs it, and mounts the directory in the finder.
If you go and look at your finder after you've tried this half a dozen times, you probably have half a dozen copies of this directory mounted in the finder. Just grab the files inside and drag them to whereever you want them.
> A friend of mine acquired one of them a few years back, and brought it to town for an install-fest when 10.1 came out... >that has gotta be the coolest OldWorld Mac I've ever seen.
I am willing to bet that you are thinking of the design of the 8600. Which was quite similar to the design of the beige tower G3.
It was prettier, it was smoother, it was nicer on the outside. On the inside, it was beautifully designed, and it and the 9600 were the beginning of the 'opens easily, folds out, and everything is really convenient inside' towers. (Well... actually Apple had made stabs at this before, but the 8600 was the first time that it really stood out as a design goal in a tower case.)
The 7200, 7500, 7600, and desktop G3 were all a WONDERFUL design: butterfly, you could fold out the power supply and the entire set of drives on a hinge to one side and a little cover over the PCI cards on the other. Then you could plug the power supply back into the outlet (having needed to unplug nothing else), and run the machine with everything open and out there. Shut down. Plug in a DIMM. Hit the power button. Did it work? No? Take it back out. It was that easy. It was lovely.
The 8500 and 9500, by contrast, were awful. I never thought them at all attractive (the 8500 looked just like the Quadra 800) and the insides were a sheer nightmare. There is a recurring story (which I can't swear to) that someone brought them to either a board meeting or a meeting of the lord-high-mucky-mucks at Apple and challenged them to change the memory on them. You had to unhook all your drives, unhook the power supply, unhook all the other cables. I *think* you had to remove the power supply. Then you had to take out the motherboard and slot the memory. And you had to reverse the entire process before you could find out whether the new memory worked or not. According to the story, none of the people at the meeting who tried it managed to add memory without cutting themselves. And thus the 8600 and 9600, which otherwise could have been simple motherboard upgrades with the same case, were born.
I don't know if it's true in fact, but it certainly was in spirit. The 8500 and 9500 were just plain painful, the former more than the latter. The 7500's case, in contrast, was a dream. Smaller, more compact, a more DIFFICULT piece of engineering, and yet it was easier to use in every significant way.
A kernel is not an OS - not just the MacOS X GUI is proprietary but also the API implementations, which vastly outweigh the size of Darwin. Litmus test: can you run MacOS X GUI apps (and nearly all are) on a plain old Darwin build? No? Thought not.
Don't be an ass. Whatever else you may think about Apple, Mac OS X, and Darwin, Darwin is still a fully viable, usable OS. It isn't as good as the better Linux or *BSD OSes, but it is an OS. 'Can you run Mac OS X GUI apps on a plain Linux build? No? Thought not.' Gee, I guess Linux must not be an OS either. Can you run Linux GUI apps on a Darwin build? Why... yes! Yes you can.
<I>3) a version of Microsoft Office</I>
Not really. Office for Mac is good, but it's not the software that people have already paid for, trained on, scripted and written arcane spreadsheet/OLE hybrid apps for.
So you're saying that Office is not in fact an advantage? Or just that it's not a huge advantage? Either way, I think you're incorrect, but if it's the former I think you're also whacked.
Eh. On second thought, I just think you're whacked.
> The UNIX security model is far superior to the classic mac/windows security model.
That is to say, 'it is just as easy to share the entire computer via NFS as it is to share any individual part of it, and both require you to be root?'
Or do you mean the part where, if you have an FTP server running, the easiest (and VERY common) way to share files with someone is just to say 'to hell with it' and type 'chmod 777 ~/*'?
Or perhaps what you mean is that very secure SMB server. Don't you have to be root to set that up, too?
Really, I'm not fully clear what you mean. Being able to right-click on a folder and say 'share the contents of this folder' is exactly the same in result as dragging that folder to your 'Shared' folder and copying it there, except it doesn't take up twice as much hard drive space, and when you make a change in the original documents you don't have to copy them all over again.
I was at a client's place the other day and he had all of his documents in his shared folder. Everything. Publicly shared. Why? He used them from a shared machine in another office, and from the wireless network, and he didn't even have an account on the shared machine and didn't want to have to dick around with it. If you make your rules strict, then people will do anything they can to get around it.
If you're not going to trust your users at all, then that's fine. But don't give them a computer. Give them an etch-a-sketch.
> The X folks in their wisdom threw out everything that Apple had developed to make the machine easier to use.
Yeah, that was always my biggest gripe. 'Metadata? We don't need it! If you double-click on a file, it should be absolutely utterly undefined what happens! Otherwise we're not compatible with Windows!' Uh... huh...
There was a bug, I can't even remember what it was about, that was floating around in Radar for literally over a year. An old Macie wrote it up, saying some bit of user interface was totally boneheaded. Over 40 people, most of whom had ten years more experience with UI design than anyone at NeXT, chimed in. As far as I could tell, it was only ever looked at by three NeXT people, who basically said, 'Nah, that sucks, it was this way in NeXT so we'll keep it this way.' It was closed more than four times, and eventually the most vocal person on it reopened it just so he could close it 'not to be fixed' instead of 'not a bug'.
It was clearly a bug. It made life more difficult for the user. But since it was how NeXT had always done things, it made life easier for the programmers. And from what I see, the NeXTies tended to think that everyone worked just exactly like they did, while the Maccies at least made an effort to figure out what would be most usable for everyone.
It was really painful to be working at Apple at that time. I wrote up over 100 UI bugs against the Mac OS X pre-betas and the only ones that got fixed were the ones that were visual artifacts or text scrolling out of windows or like that. They never even looked at my complaints about usability, they just closed them 'behaves as expected'. I have literally had more effect on the UI of the Mac OS since I left Apple by filing bugs at bugreport.apple.com than I ever did while I was working there. And, might I add, so far about 50% of the usability issues that I complained about in Mac OS X were fixed. Due, I'm sure, to public outcry.
Now I'm all depressed. Dammit, someone post something funny and cheer me up.
So Microsoft (ONCE) releases a major update for Windows XP, and suddenly it's a saint.
That's fine. Apple's 10.1 was free to all users of 10.1 (although if you weren't lucky enough to be able to drop by a computer store that had the CDs to give away for free you might have had to pay $20 for shipping and handling.) Another one-time major upgrade. And that's even assuming that you don't think that all of the updates between 10.3.0 and 10.3.5 constitute as much of an upgrade as XP and XP SP 2.
...I don't know about that. French law only counts product sales in France. If Apple has a 95% market share in France, it has a monopoly in France, regardless of what is happening elsewhere. And that wouldn't surprise me as much as it might you, because the French have an eye for elegant hardware, and an unconcealed loathing for 'wanna-be' junk. It's just one of the traits that makes Americans hate them so much.
So before you start spouting off on it not being a monopoly, let's see your numbers on French music player sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't it be SSL? Because the Apple WebDAV client DOESN'T WORK OVER SSL.
Interestingly, this means it's easy to set up Apple's WebDAV server on MacOS X Server such that Apple's WebDAV client can't connect to it, but the Windows WebDAV client(s) can.
Paaaa-THETIC.
-fred
Whereas Apple actually hosts their own
So no, there is really no crossover at all. And ability to do one does not imply in any way the ability to do the other.
-fred
I bought a PowerMac G4 Cube a few months ago to do this. Low power, no noise, and everything I needed was there and mostly set up by default. The firewall needs a bit of tugging on, but, well, such is life. The Windows file sharing works wonderfully.
Plus, I can either lock it in the closet or leave it out on my living room table as a conversation piece. ('What's that? It's cute!' 'Oh, that's my web server.')
-fred
Damn, I wouldn't have guessed that Jesus posted anonymously on here.
Nor that he was another grammar nazi. Hail, brother!
-fred
Now I see what I'm missing by not having a TV.
It's not the programs. It's the opportunity to be a curmudgeon about something besides computers.
-fred
Well, I don't know about him, but I walk to work. And a fair amount of my walk is in 'not-so-good-radio-reception' territory.
-fred
The revenge is that we're giving them Ice-T at all.
-fred
-fred
It showed. Premiere 5 for the Mac was buggy, slow, and lacked quite a number of features that the Windows version had. It was, in fact, unusable compared to the Windows version. How did that happen? Who knows. But it was garbage, and Adobe cheerfully blamed Apple for it and pushed for all of their biggest customers to switch over entirely to Windows.
Would Apple have released FCP without this little impetus? Perhaps it would have. But the question doesn't arise: the need was there, and Apple followed through with it. So don't blame Apple for Adobe's failings. Apple has done enough blameworthy stuff over the years to have plenty to answer for, no need to add things that other companies brought on themselves.
-fred
Sheesh.
-fred
That's a lovely idea. But since the company is named Apple, and iTunes belong to them, then by definition they are selling music, using iTunes, with the Apple brand. The only way around it would be to sell iTMS.
I suspect that even if iTMS were spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary, they would still be engaging in selling music using the Apple brand.
So either they completely get rid of iTMS, they give Apple Music their asking price for use of the brand to sell music (which was rumored to be more than 4 billion plus royalties for every song sold... basically, 'give us ALL of your money, plus royalties'), or they break the law.
Interesting set of choices, huh?
-fred
...536.870912 megabyte DIMM, please?
MiB and KiB and so forth were invented by apologists for the hard drive industry, so that they could get away with misrepresenting the size of their drives.
Measuring anything on a computer in decimal is just plain stupid. Overloading 'mega-' and 'kilo-' as meaning 1024 * 1024 and 1024 when used in computer terms is only confusing to those who deliberately wish it to be so.
-fred
I lie, it looks like you don't even need QTSS for that size audience. QTB can probably do it, unless you're looking for a really high-res stream. I've never tried it that way, though, for more than one client at a time, though.
-fred
I love all the people here who are saying 'Use QuickTime Streaming Server (or Darwin Streaming Server)!' Most or all of whom have never done what the person is asking about, I suspect.
t er/) and QTSS together. Once you have them, though, things just work, fairly seamlessly. And you can (and by default do) transmit good-quality standard MPEG-4, which can be read by any MPEG-4 player. Or you can choose any other codec, and the stream can still be read by any player that supports RTP/RTSP. (Which are, of course, open standards.)
It sure sounds to me like they want a live-compression-and-broadcasting tool. QTSS only broadcasts hinted movies (movies that have been prepared for broadcast by QuickTime Pro or one of the other tools designed to do that). It can't take in a video source and broadcast video out the back end.
For that you need QuickTime Broadcaster (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/broadcas
And it's all free. And it's really easy to set up.
Check it out. It's sweet.
-fred
'Data' is a collective noun, not a normal plural. Which in the United States is treated as singular and in the UK as plural. You can be dogmatic about it if you like, but that's how Strunk & White plays it, and that's how it's been, by and large, for 100 years in the US.
The class is on a field trip. (US)
The class are on a field trip. (UK)
The herd is stampeding. (US)
The herd are stampeding. (UK)
The data is inconclusive. (US)
The data are inconclusive. (UK)
-fred
It does work. It's pointing to a directory. You click on it, and Safari grabs it, and mounts the directory in the finder.
If you go and look at your finder after you've tried this half a dozen times, you probably have half a dozen copies of this directory mounted in the finder. Just grab the files inside and drag them to whereever you want them.
-fred
This was my first post on the subject.
:-)
You're half right, though.
-fred
> A friend of mine acquired one of them a few years back, and brought it to town for an install-fest when 10.1 came out...
>that has gotta be the coolest OldWorld Mac I've ever seen.
I am willing to bet that you are thinking of the design of the 8600. Which was quite similar to the design of the beige tower G3.
It was prettier, it was smoother, it was nicer on the outside. On the inside, it was beautifully designed, and it and the 9600 were the beginning of the 'opens easily, folds out, and everything is really convenient inside' towers. (Well... actually Apple had made stabs at this before, but the 8600 was the first time that it really stood out as a design goal in a tower case.)
The 7200, 7500, 7600, and desktop G3 were all a WONDERFUL design: butterfly, you could fold out the power supply and the entire set of drives on a hinge to one side and a little cover over the PCI cards on the other. Then you could plug the power supply back into the outlet (having needed to unplug nothing else), and run the machine with everything open and out there. Shut down. Plug in a DIMM. Hit the power button. Did it work? No? Take it back out. It was that easy. It was lovely.
The 8500 and 9500, by contrast, were awful. I never thought them at all attractive (the 8500 looked just like the Quadra 800) and the insides were a sheer nightmare. There is a recurring story (which I can't swear to) that someone brought them to either a board meeting or a meeting of the lord-high-mucky-mucks at Apple and challenged them to change the memory on them. You had to unhook all your drives, unhook the power supply, unhook all the other cables. I *think* you had to remove the power supply. Then you had to take out the motherboard and slot the memory. And you had to reverse the entire process before you could find out whether the new memory worked or not. According to the story, none of the people at the meeting who tried it managed to add memory without cutting themselves. And thus the 8600 and 9600, which otherwise could have been simple motherboard upgrades with the same case, were born.
I don't know if it's true in fact, but it certainly was in spirit. The 8500 and 9500 were just plain painful, the former more than the latter. The 7500's case, in contrast, was a dream. Smaller, more compact, a more DIFFICULT piece of engineering, and yet it was easier to use in every significant way.
-fred
So you're saying that Office is not in fact an advantage? Or just that it's not a huge advantage? Either way, I think you're incorrect, but if it's the former I think you're also whacked.
Eh. On second thought, I just think you're whacked.
-fred
> The UNIX security model is far superior to the classic mac/windows security model.
That is to say, 'it is just as easy to share the entire computer via NFS as it is to share any individual part of it, and both require you to be root?'
Or do you mean the part where, if you have an FTP server running, the easiest (and VERY common) way to share files with someone is just to say 'to hell with it' and type 'chmod 777 ~/*'?
Or perhaps what you mean is that very secure SMB server. Don't you have to be root to set that up, too?
Really, I'm not fully clear what you mean. Being able to right-click on a folder and say 'share the contents of this folder' is exactly the same in result as dragging that folder to your 'Shared' folder and copying it there, except it doesn't take up twice as much hard drive space, and when you make a change in the original documents you don't have to copy them all over again.
I was at a client's place the other day and he had all of his documents in his shared folder. Everything. Publicly shared. Why? He used them from a shared machine in another office, and from the wireless network, and he didn't even have an account on the shared machine and didn't want to have to dick around with it. If you make your rules strict, then people will do anything they can to get around it.
If you're not going to trust your users at all, then that's fine. But don't give them a computer. Give them an etch-a-sketch.
-fred
> The X folks in their wisdom threw out everything that Apple had developed to make the machine easier to use.
Yeah, that was always my biggest gripe. 'Metadata? We don't need it! If you double-click on a file, it should be absolutely utterly undefined what happens! Otherwise we're not compatible with Windows!' Uh... huh...
There was a bug, I can't even remember what it was about, that was floating around in Radar for literally over a year. An old Macie wrote it up, saying some bit of user interface was totally boneheaded. Over 40 people, most of whom had ten years more experience with UI design than anyone at NeXT, chimed in. As far as I could tell, it was only ever looked at by three NeXT people, who basically said, 'Nah, that sucks, it was this way in NeXT so we'll keep it this way.' It was closed more than four times, and eventually the most vocal person on it reopened it just so he could close it 'not to be fixed' instead of 'not a bug'.
It was clearly a bug. It made life more difficult for the user. But since it was how NeXT had always done things, it made life easier for the programmers. And from what I see, the NeXTies tended to think that everyone worked just exactly like they did, while the Maccies at least made an effort to figure out what would be most usable for everyone.
It was really painful to be working at Apple at that time. I wrote up over 100 UI bugs against the Mac OS X pre-betas and the only ones that got fixed were the ones that were visual artifacts or text scrolling out of windows or like that. They never even looked at my complaints about usability, they just closed them 'behaves as expected'. I have literally had more effect on the UI of the Mac OS since I left Apple by filing bugs at bugreport.apple.com than I ever did while I was working there. And, might I add, so far about 50% of the usability issues that I complained about in Mac OS X were fixed. Due, I'm sure, to public outcry.
Now I'm all depressed. Dammit, someone post something funny and cheer me up.
-=fred
I know which I'd prefer, but hey, I can't rule either possibility out.
-fred
So Microsoft (ONCE) releases a major update for Windows XP, and suddenly it's a saint.
That's fine. Apple's 10.1 was free to all users of 10.1 (although if you weren't lucky enough to be able to drop by a computer store that had the CDs to give away for free you might have had to pay $20 for shipping and handling.) Another one-time major upgrade. And that's even assuming that you don't think that all of the updates between 10.3.0 and 10.3.5 constitute as much of an upgrade as XP and XP SP 2.
So what do I win?
-fred
...I don't know about that. French law only counts product sales in France. If Apple has a 95% market share in France, it has a monopoly in France, regardless of what is happening elsewhere. And that wouldn't surprise me as much as it might you, because the French have an eye for elegant hardware, and an unconcealed loathing for 'wanna-be' junk. It's just one of the traits that makes Americans hate them so much.
So before you start spouting off on it not being a monopoly, let's see your numbers on French music player sales.
-fred
Teach me to puncture people with my 'rapier with' without clicking 'Preview'.
-fred