> All PPC processors up to and NOT including the G5 were bi-endian. VPC switched their endianness while it was > running so it could do everything without swapping bytes.
Incorrect. It used specific little-endian processor instructions, but it did not put the chip into little-endian mode.
And, oddly, Virtual PC's performance was never more than 25% or so greater than SoftWindows's performance, and SoftWindows never used them at all, and was a badly-ported 680x0 program by then to boot. So frankly, I have my doubts that this is really going to make that much of a difference.
He specifically mentions recompiling MacOS X applications for use with the palmtop. Don't work unless they are recompiled. So the ONLY thing at issue is Cocoa. You can't run native MacOS X applications on the handheld; different processor, and trust me, he's not doing processor emulation.
>...and talks about updating the implementation of OpenStep (which is open source) > to be compatible with Cocoa (which is not).
Let's distinguish the OpenStep API from the GnuStep implementation, shall we? GNUStep is a 'free' (as in gnus) implementation of the 'open' OpenStep API. You can't copyright or patent an API.
Even given that, though, I'd agree with you if they were reverse-engineering the entire API from scratch. But when the changes are like 3% of the damn API base, give it up! Reverse-engineering the hundred or so class-pieces of the Cocoa APIs that have changed since GNUStep was implemented isn't even INTERESTING, let alone offensive.
> I'm sorry but the excuse "but we're pitching this product at this market" isn't a valid excuse for the fact that their > profit margins on the iPod Mini are excessivily high.
You have literally no idea what their profit margins are on the iPod Mini. In fact, I suspect that they are probably lower than those of the iPod 15 gig.
The smaller drives are more expensive. The smaller form factor means the guts are more expensive.
All of the competing systems that are hard-drive-based are larger (less expensive to build) and cost the same or more, or very slightly less. And Apple's are almost certainly slightly better made (and no I don't want to hear about the batteries) which does, in fact, cost more, believe it or not.
So, basically, I suspect that if they had more than $1 margin at $199 they would have released it at that price point. And I think that the only reason you imagine some sort of large margins here is because this is Apple, and because you're comparing Apples to Oranges. Again.
In what way? The System Preferences panel is not really in any way different than any one of a dozen implementations of preferences for a dozen other programs. There's nothing new there. Admittedly, if it looks identical to the Apple implementation, *IDENTICAL*, then it's a bit of a rip. But nothing too exciting.
2) Menu extras are Apple technologies.
Okay. What's a Menu Extra?
3) The Finder is an Apple technology.
This specifically doesn't run the finder, it runs something vaguely similar that he's putting together himself.
Unless what you really mean is 'anything called 'The Finder' is an Apple technology.' Or 'anything that looks kind of like the Apple Finder is a rip-off,' in which case basically every OS's GUI that is even vaguely usable today is a rip-off. I explicitly include some of the better Linux GUI work.
4) Cocoa (not OpenStep, but Cocoa) is an Apple technology.
Look, here's how you create a new window in Cocoa:
Now, may I remind you that this is a WINDOW. In MacOS X, it's got colorful lickable widgets, it's displayed in Display PDF, it's got Quartz Extreme accelerating it (and is therefore drawn totally differently in some cases than in others.) In contrast, in Solaris OpenStep, it's displayed in X, and in Display Postscript in NeXTStep, its widgets look completely different, it has three different kinds of graphics implementations, it does different things when you click and drag in it, and just in general it behaves very differently than it does on the Mac. So this isn't some kind of 'really similar' special case. This is representative of the whole language.
Now, given that, I'm leaving you to guess how different Cocoa and NeXTStep/OpenStep actually are.
This guy is taking the 'OpenSTEP' API set, which was opened up and published by NeXT, of which GNUStep is a legal implementation, and porting it (via GNUStep) to a handheld.
So that one can enjoy MacOS X applications on a handheld device.
Now, I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the right word, since on my 2304 x 870 screen setup (two 21" monitors) I still feel like I could use more desktop space for MacOS X. I cringe at the thought of a handheld running it. But at worst it's a solecism, not a ripping off of Apple. They published the APIs, someone else came along and made another implementation (with NeXT's blessing, if I recall correctly), and this guy is porting it to a handheld and updating it a little to be more compatible with MacOS X.
In summary: lighten up. You're sounding like the type that gives us Mac users a bad name.
> The speed difference is nothing staggering, and maybe it only saved twenty bucks from the next speed grade, but so what?
That's sort of the point. You saved yourself $20 and cost yourself several hours of time dicking around with jumpers, trying to figure out what clock rates are stable, etc.
If you say you're doing it for fun, then that's fine. But don't think it's a rational, useful strategy, unless your time isn't worth $20.
So, uh, let's try that again, with feeling. (The cut-and-paste buffer causes some slight problems when you don't successfully cut.)
> They probably made a great deal of money on the bottles they did sell, and will charge back all costs to the > manufacturer on the bottles they did are recalling.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view, but this part is totally wrong. Unless they were outsourcing it to Canada or something, there's no way they'll manage to charge back any costs to anyone. Typically when there's a problem like this the expenses just get written off because it is nearly impossible to sue someone in a 'business-friendly' third world country.
> A bottle of cranberry drink labeled as "100% fruit juice" is probably not actually 100% cranberry juice -- as you say, > most fruit juice is "cut" with apple juice (Okay, so you were right on that). But it's all fruit juice, from some fruit or another.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view, but this is totally wrong. Unless they were outsourcing it to Canada or something, there's no way they'll manage to charge back any costs to anyone. Typically when there's a problem like this the expenses just get written off because it is nearly impossible to sue someone in a 'business-friendly' third world country.
> A bottle of cranberry drink labeled as "100% fruit juice" is probably not actually 100% cranberry juice -- as you say, > most fruit juice is "cut" with apple juice (Okay, so you were right on that). But it's all fruit juice, from some fruit or another.
Actually, white grape is most common, from what I understand.
> Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any > Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
So, to make a comparable statement, I shouldn't ever leave anything in my desk drawer at work that I don't want passed around to the entire company? And that, if I leave a pay stub in my desk drawer, then it's my own damn fault that everyone in the company knows what I'm paid?
> Reports have indicated it was common knowledge in the Beltway cocktail circuit
That is true. That the reports said that, I mean, not that it was common knowledge. (Admittedly, I've only ever actually seen two (right-wing) columnists actually WRITE it, but I'll tentatively believe that some reporters did too.)
It is, in fact, possible to find one or two people who claim that they knew this beforehand, but somehow nobody at all who can remember where they heard it or under what circumstances. And those one or two are people who would find it useful and profitable to brush this under the carpet because it could potentially annoy people they don't like.
So, yes, we would have to assume they're telling the truth until it is proven otherwise *were we in court*, but I have no trouble assuming that they are liars to myself.
Anyway, it's hardly germane. Even if it were true, it could just as easily have meant that there were two leaks: one a couple of years earlier, to feed the hunger for gossip on that Beltway cocktail circuit.
Actually, by a gentleman the government was using as an informer. He had a criminal record, had lied to the government (verifiably) several times before, and was being paid extremely well for his testimony.
But he did say it, and he probably didn't even have to be coached.
> Anyone who purports to be an "unbiased news source" is full of shit.
No. They may not be perfect, but they're not full of shit. It's quite possible to attempt to report something without bias, and not actually all that hard to accomplish. It's just that nobody does it today, because it's much more fun to bias everything to the right. (Right? Yes. The liberal media is a lovely bedtime story, but it's just a bedtime story.)
> Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse?
Why, yes. Yes, I do. Because if there had been any significant corruption in the Clinton white house, a certain independent prosecutor with a fanatical hatred of Clinton would have been all over it. He spent more than $10 million on an investigation of anything remotely to do with the Clintons and the best he could come up with was Clinton lying about having sex.
Whereas Bush would (if you read the actual documents) almost certainly have been arrested for insider trading twenty years ago if his daddy hadn't been VP. And the appearances of things, at least, haven't gotten any better.
> If i'm using sudo responsibly, only few users will have ALL access or access to su. If I have such an incident with sudo, > I can find out that jacob was the culprit, and start investigating from there. Masquerading? Better get out your > fingerprint kit.
If you're using the OS responsibly, almost NOBODY should have admin access, and those who do have it should be people you'd trust. Because if someone can sudo, they can dick around with the logs.
In essence, your audit trail depends upon the person who uses su or sudo being stupid, which is even worse than 'security by obscurity'.
Slashdot Mirror
> All PPC processors up to and NOT including the G5 were bi-endian. VPC switched their endianness while it was
> running so it could do everything without swapping bytes.
Incorrect. It used specific little-endian processor instructions, but it did not put the chip into little-endian mode.
And, oddly, Virtual PC's performance was never more than 25% or so greater than SoftWindows's performance, and SoftWindows never used them at all, and was a badly-ported 680x0 program by then to boot. So frankly, I have my doubts that this is really going to make that much of a difference.
-fred
Yes. Yes, it does.
Hee.
-fred
> He specifically mentions Mac OS X applications.
...and talks about updating the implementation of OpenStep (which is open source)
He specifically mentions recompiling MacOS X applications for use with the palmtop. Don't work unless they are recompiled. So the ONLY thing at issue is Cocoa. You can't run native MacOS X applications on the handheld; different processor, and trust me, he's not doing processor emulation.
>
> to be compatible with Cocoa (which is not).
Let's distinguish the OpenStep API from the GnuStep implementation, shall we? GNUStep is a 'free' (as in gnus) implementation of the 'open' OpenStep API. You can't copyright or patent an API.
Even given that, though, I'd agree with you if they were reverse-engineering the entire API from scratch. But when the changes are like 3% of the damn API base, give it up! Reverse-engineering the hundred or so class-pieces of the Cocoa APIs that have changed since GNUStep was implemented isn't even INTERESTING, let alone offensive.
-fred
> In all reality, your response is more insipid and insulting than I'd expected when I clicked downstream.
Funny, though.
-fred
> I'm sorry but the excuse "but we're pitching this product at this market" isn't a valid excuse for the fact that their
> profit margins on the iPod Mini are excessivily high.
You have literally no idea what their profit margins are on the iPod Mini. In fact, I suspect that they are probably lower than those of the iPod 15 gig.
The smaller drives are more expensive. The smaller form factor means the guts are more expensive.
All of the competing systems that are hard-drive-based are larger (less expensive to build) and cost the same or more, or very slightly less. And Apple's are almost certainly slightly better made (and no I don't want to hear about the batteries) which does, in fact, cost more, believe it or not.
So, basically, I suspect that if they had more than $1 margin at $199 they would have released it at that price point. And I think that the only reason you imagine some sort of large margins here is because this is Apple, and because you're comparing Apples to Oranges. Again.
-fred
You know... Chief Uber-hacker Spice... or whatever.
-fred
1) Preference panes are Apple technologes
C ocoa/Ref erence/ApplicationKit/ObjC_classic/Classes/NSWindo w.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000013/BCIBIAJJ
n 62p?q=ns window&a=view
In what way? The System Preferences panel is not really in any way different than any one of a dozen implementations of preferences for a dozen other programs. There's nothing new there. Admittedly, if it looks identical to the Apple implementation, *IDENTICAL*, then it's a bit of a rip. But nothing too exciting.
2) Menu extras are Apple technologies.
Okay. What's a Menu Extra?
3) The Finder is an Apple technology.
This specifically doesn't run the finder, it runs something vaguely similar that he's putting together himself.
Unless what you really mean is 'anything called 'The Finder' is an Apple technology.' Or 'anything that looks kind of like the Apple Finder is a rip-off,' in which case basically every OS's GUI that is even vaguely usable today is a rip-off. I explicitly include some of the better Linux GUI work.
4) Cocoa (not OpenStep, but Cocoa) is an Apple technology.
Look, here's how you create a new window in Cocoa:
NSWindow *myWindow = [[NSWindow alloc] initWithContentRect myContentRectangle
styleMask:(NSTitledWindowMask | NSClosableWindowMask)
backing:NSBackingStoreBuffered
defer:NO];
(c.f. documentation here:)
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/
And here's how you create one in OpenStep:
NSWindow *myWindow = [[NSWindow alloc] initWithContentRect myContentRectangle
styleMask:(NSTitledWindowMask | NSClosableWindowMask)
backing:NSBackingStoreBuffered
defer:NO];
(c.f. documentation here:)
http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/802-2112/6i63m
Now, may I remind you that this is a WINDOW. In MacOS X, it's got colorful lickable widgets, it's displayed in Display PDF, it's got Quartz Extreme accelerating it (and is therefore drawn totally differently in some cases than in others.) In contrast, in Solaris OpenStep, it's displayed in X, and in Display Postscript in NeXTStep, its widgets look completely different, it has three different kinds of graphics implementations, it does different things when you click and drag in it, and just in general it behaves very differently than it does on the Mac. So this isn't some kind of 'really similar' special case. This is representative of the whole language.
Now, given that, I'm leaving you to guess how different Cocoa and NeXTStep/OpenStep actually are.
-fred
Well, uh, no.
This guy is taking the 'OpenSTEP' API set, which was opened up and published by NeXT, of which GNUStep is a legal implementation, and porting it (via GNUStep) to a handheld.
So that one can enjoy MacOS X applications on a handheld device.
Now, I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the right word, since on my 2304 x 870 screen setup (two 21" monitors) I still feel like I could use more desktop space for MacOS X. I cringe at the thought of a handheld running it. But at worst it's a solecism, not a ripping off of Apple. They published the APIs, someone else came along and made another implementation (with NeXT's blessing, if I recall correctly), and this guy is porting it to a handheld and updating it a little to be more compatible with MacOS X.
In summary: lighten up. You're sounding like the type that gives us Mac users a bad name.
-fred
Come on. +5 funny? Maybe. +5 Interesting?
Sheesh.
-fred
> 5. Reword phrases like "Bring 'em on"
Somehow 'KILL LOTS MORE AMERICANS RIGHT NOW' doesn't have the same ring to it.
-fred
> The speed difference is nothing staggering, and maybe it only saved twenty bucks from the next speed grade, but so what?
That's sort of the point. You saved yourself $20 and cost yourself several hours of time dicking around with jumpers, trying to figure out what clock rates are stable, etc.
If you say you're doing it for fun, then that's fine. But don't think it's a rational, useful strategy, unless your time isn't worth $20.
-fred
> And there have been some (very inconclusive) links to Alzheimer's with aluminium.
Since completely discredited.
In fact, copper is a much more likely culprit, although the results are inconclusive still.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3140829.stm
-fred
So, uh, let's try that again, with feeling. (The cut-and-paste buffer causes some slight problems when you don't successfully cut.)
> They probably made a great deal of money on the bottles they did sell, and will charge back all costs to the
> manufacturer on the bottles they did are recalling.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view, but this part is totally wrong. Unless they were outsourcing it to Canada or something, there's no way they'll manage to charge back any costs to anyone. Typically when there's a problem like this the expenses just get written off because it is nearly impossible to sue someone in a 'business-friendly' third world country.
> A bottle of cranberry drink labeled as "100% fruit juice" is probably not actually 100% cranberry juice -- as you say,
> most fruit juice is "cut" with apple juice (Okay, so you were right on that). But it's all fruit juice, from some fruit or another.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view, but this is totally wrong. Unless they were outsourcing it to Canada or something, there's no way they'll manage to charge back any costs to anyone. Typically when there's a problem like this the expenses just get written off because it is nearly impossible to sue someone in a 'business-friendly' third world country.
-fred
> A bottle of cranberry drink labeled as "100% fruit juice" is probably not actually 100% cranberry juice -- as you say,
> most fruit juice is "cut" with apple juice (Okay, so you were right on that). But it's all fruit juice, from some fruit or another.
Actually, white grape is most common, from what I understand.
Largest concentration of sugar and all that.
-fred
Okay. Let me see if I can make this easy for you.
Take 100% pure silver, in a bar. What is its consistency?
Melt it. Now what is its consistency?
Grind it up into an ultra-fine powder. Now what is its consistency?
Now take the ground up silver and mix it with, say, baby oil, until it's 90% silver and 10% baby oil. Now what is its consistency?
And that's basically what the stuff is supposed to be, except that it's some kind of wax or oil that isn't made with babies.
-fred
> Think for a minute now, if these had been paper documents which had been left alone in a place where any
> Senator could get to them, there would be no story here except that the Dems screwed up.
So, to make a comparable statement, I shouldn't ever leave anything in my desk drawer at work that I don't want passed around to the entire company? And that, if I leave a pay stub in my desk drawer, then it's my own damn fault that everyone in the company knows what I'm paid?
Hm. I don't want to live in *your* world.
-fred
Or possibly something that will let me enter a blank message body.
-fred
> Reports have indicated it was common knowledge in the Beltway cocktail circuit
That is true. That the reports said that, I mean, not that it was common knowledge. (Admittedly, I've only ever actually seen two (right-wing) columnists actually WRITE it, but I'll tentatively believe that some reporters did too.)
It is, in fact, possible to find one or two people who claim that they knew this beforehand, but somehow nobody at all who can remember where they heard it or under what circumstances. And those one or two are people who would find it useful and profitable to brush this under the carpet because it could potentially annoy people they don't like.
So, yes, we would have to assume they're telling the truth until it is proven otherwise *were we in court*, but I have no trouble assuming that they are liars to myself.
Anyway, it's hardly germane. Even if it were true, it could just as easily have meant that there were two leaks: one a couple of years earlier, to feed the hunger for gossip on that Beltway cocktail circuit.
-fred
> Forged by whom, I wonder?
Actually, by a gentleman the government was using as an informer. He had a criminal record, had lied to the government (verifiably) several times before, and was being paid extremely well for his testimony.
But he did say it, and he probably didn't even have to be coached.
After all, he knew what they wanted to hear.
-fred
> Anyone who purports to be an "unbiased news source" is full of shit.
No. They may not be perfect, but they're not full of shit. It's quite possible to attempt to report something without bias, and not actually all that hard to accomplish. It's just that nobody does it today, because it's much more fun to bias everything to the right. (Right? Yes. The liberal media is a lovely bedtime story, but it's just a bedtime story.)
> Do you really think there was any less corruption in the Clinton whitehouse than in the Bush whitehouse?
Why, yes. Yes, I do. Because if there had been any significant corruption in the Clinton white house, a certain independent prosecutor with a fanatical hatred of Clinton would have been all over it. He spent more than $10 million on an investigation of anything remotely to do with the Clintons and the best he could come up with was Clinton lying about having sex.
Whereas Bush would (if you read the actual documents) almost certainly have been arrested for insider trading twenty years ago if his daddy hadn't been VP. And the appearances of things, at least, haven't gotten any better.
-fred
> If i'm using sudo responsibly, only few users will have ALL access or access to su. If I have such an incident with sudo,
> I can find out that jacob was the culprit, and start investigating from there. Masquerading? Better get out your
> fingerprint kit.
If you're using the OS responsibly, almost NOBODY should have admin access, and those who do have it should be people you'd trust. Because if someone can sudo, they can dick around with the logs.
In essence, your audit trail depends upon the person who uses su or sudo being stupid, which is even worse than 'security by obscurity'.
-fred
That is, as well as being amazingly powerful, applescript is also quite simple. As is the robot. But not my friend. She's fairly complicated.
And the remote abilities of my friend are hotly debated, but I 've rarely used her to quit iChat or mail.app.
-fred
Applescript is amazingly powerful. I have a friend who runs a (very simple) robot on a MMORPG using just an applescript. It's also quite simple.
I've never used the remote abilities much, mind you. Except a few times for quitting a iChat or mail.app or something else remotely.
-fred
That's right! I mean, god forbid I should actually be able to set up my company's DNS in less than 14 hours, without the O'Reilly in my hand.
Who do these people think they are, making my life easier? They should be taken out and shot, all of them.
-fred