No, I don't forget it, I just don't hold "the law" as a hard and fast supreme guideline, and certainly don't assume that once you've been caught breaking the law you're all of the sudden so much worse than everyone else (who has also broken the law at sometime, but just has not been caught). The idea that one OS can ship with a web browser and one can't is ridiculous, law or not.
Also, until Bill G, or Darl McB, is doing the same, I want to see no talk of MS or SCO "making" people do anything. Cause we all know it takes a gun to the head to coerce users to do something.
That said, I imagine the value of the time saved in a year for an average worker using a Mac instead of a Windows machine is probably more than $130.
Yeah, sounds great! Except you just made it up. You say at the end of your post that you use neither system (I use windows, but no mac), so I doubt either of us have the perspective to say which one is cheaper to run, or saves more time, except for the slashdot perspective, which we all know is slanted.
Nevermind the fact that if this was MS, you'd see such hell raised here that has not been seen before...
Based on everything else I've read in the comments, Apple does not make all of its software backwards compatible. By doing such, they are making users upgrade to use the latest software. If you're okay with paying, that's great, but it represents a significant departure from the accepted practice of backward compatibility in OSes and applications.
Then the simple counter argument is that the difference between 98 and XP is much, much vaster than the difference between.2 and.3. Simply put, it's not really comparable, as its not really a.1 update but not a 1.0 update.
For the record, MS 'upgrades' are actually full installers. If you go to install an 'upgrade' onto a clean machine (Let's say the upgrade is 98->ME), it will first ask you for a 98 serial #, then proceed. The only thing that is changed is it "makes sure" you have bought the base version that the upgrade is for.
I should disclaim that I have not tried every combination of Windows upgrades, so this may not be true for all of them.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you want to guarantee that you can use the latest and greatest of every piece of software you find, you need to keep your OS up-to-date
There's a difference between keeping it "up-to-date", and paying a $120 fee to Apple every year just to run the latest applications.
Anyway, to say that a user has put themselves into a dynamic software mode is ridiculous. That is simply the nature of 99% of the software released today. Even large programs suffer from this, and fixes are released daily for many of the programs we all use, no matter what platform, no matter what product. In order to completely avoid this, as you suggest, a user must select those programs which have already been thoroughly, thoroughly tested, to ensure that no upgrades or other changes to the software will be required. To hold a personal user to such a standard is ludicrous.
While I understand what you are saying, you are choosing to live in a dynamic-software mode, which is probably not a good mode to live your life in if you don't like to pay for upgrades.
Oh, please! The nature of software development is what causes this, and to say that all you need to do is "make a few trade-offs" to avoid it is ridiculous. Software is updated for more reasons than just usability and flashy graphics. If an application developer finds out that there's a bug in his program but doesn't want to maintain an OS X 10.2 and OS X 10.3 version, he's going to fix the bug and move forward with an OS X 10.3 version, leaving anyone still using the old version behind.
This situation arose because of the way software development works. It is simply not possible to eliminate all bugs from a program. It is possible, with great time and expense, to ensure that the program will run bug free for all but the most outrageous situations. However, many smaller developers, including open source developers, simply do not have the time or resources to exhaustively test their programs. This leads to a strung out development process where incremental updates for minor problems are released frequently.
Granted, there's DLL hell on windows as well, but the problem is far smaller than on mac and linux.
I hope you don't believe that "DLL hell" still exists as it did, say, 4-8 years ago. I don't mean to be insulting or condesceding. Some *nix users departed from Windows so long ago, and have isolated themselves from it so much, that they just assume that it never got any better. It's very rare that a Windows application is downloaded, installed, and doesn't 'just work'.
Okay, fine. Let's go so far as to call 10.2 OS XI, and 10.3 OS XII.
Do you agree with Apple's strategy of releasing OS X, releasing OS XI a year later for $120, and then requiring OS XI for the applications which are considered a strong part of what I'll call "The Mac Advantage"? Do you agree with them, about another year later, releasing OS XII and doing the same thing?
Call it what you want, OS X 10.3, OS X 2004, OS X SP2, OS XII... it's still making your users pay $120 each year.
How about I just show you the thousands of IR ports that are very small and will not require any major change to the form factor of the device?
You said in another post here you're only looking for a choice. Fine. I'll tell you what I've been telling every other naysayer I've met: step aside, and let us who wish to proceed with progress. You know as well as I that society is not going to wake up one day and require one of these devices. One does not even need a cellphone or computer in this society. If you don't want to use it, don't.
So you invented some wacky scenarios to prove me "wrong." In scenario one, first the parents are stupid (for 'forgetting' to disable features), then the kid is a super genius (for social engineering the cell phone company into turning them back on - ha!). In scenario two, if someone stores the PIN on the phone, they are stupid. Sure, you can't write the ATM number on the card, but many cards come with a paper sleeve you could write the number on, or you could use your own piece of paper with the PIN on it and keep it with the card in your wallet. Voila. Stupid people will be stupid people, and that's no reason to stop the rest of us.
The electric window scenario sounds like you've got me beat, except for a few simple points.
1. A car window is not a door into your house. It is simply not 'required'. The only situation I can think of where it's anywhere near important is if you happen to drive into a lake. Don't forget that it's also possible to kick out the windows.
2. Cars are made as cheap as possible. The inclusion of both systems would require more engineering than deemed necessary by the auto makers, and I tend to agree. I happen to have a broken passenger side motor, and it's rarely a problem. Driver's side I would just get fixed.
Anyway, if the backup to an electronic lock is a keyed lock (and it most likely is), you haven't defeated the purpose. Many people store keys to their houses hidden on the property. If you don't want to do that, you can always kick in a window (hell, that's your solution if you lose your key today and don't have a backup on the property/with a friend).
From most accounts, it seems like much of Iraq's infrastructure was already in need of replacement. Also recall that the current plan only calls for half of the reconstruction money to be provided as a loan. Also recall that the Iraqis as a people are filthy rich. Not material wealth, like in the USA, but their potential for wealth, as a nation, is gigantic. It just needs a bit of investment first. Why should the USA provide that investment when the Iraqis will profit?
How does your scenario prove that the lowtech solution is the best? Surely any system would have backups in case of failure, or else people wouldn't buy it.
Wow. Okay scenario one is simple, turn this off on your kid's phone! Whew. That was hard! Kids have had phone lines for years, and typically have the 900 and long distance shut off just for this reason. If this can't be done on cellular systems, then it's a severe lack of foresight by the designers of the system (failure to emulate land-line features of the network, which customers will invariably want).
Now onto scenario two, it's no different from an ATM pin, so there is no need to address the issue. PINs are considered secure in our society. If a few people aren't secure with a PIN, they shouldn't use this, or an ATM card.
Both of your scenarios present trivial speed bumps on the path to a useful system.
..cellphones weren't already complex enough? I don't carry a Swiss Army Knife or a Leatherman, when all I need is one blade. For the very same reason, I'm strongly against most cluttery "features" like this.
Great 'insightful' analogy except that it's so simply broken. When you add tools to your blade, it gets larger and bulkier. When you add features to your cell phone, it (for the most part) does not change size, shape or weight.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't forget it, I just don't hold "the law" as a hard and fast supreme guideline, and certainly don't assume that once you've been caught breaking the law you're all of the sudden so much worse than everyone else (who has also broken the law at sometime, but just has not been caught). The idea that one OS can ship with a web browser and one can't is ridiculous, law or not.
Mis-read/Convoluted language by me. I did not mean a message on startup of the OS, but of an incompatible application.
Also, until Bill G, or Darl McB, is doing the same, I want to see no talk of MS or SCO "making" people do anything. Cause we all know it takes a gun to the head to coerce users to do something.
That said, I imagine the value of the time saved in a year for an average worker using a Mac instead of a Windows machine is probably more than $130.
Yeah, sounds great! Except you just made it up. You say at the end of your post that you use neither system (I use windows, but no mac), so I doubt either of us have the perspective to say which one is cheaper to run, or saves more time, except for the slashdot perspective, which we all know is slanted.
Nevermind the fact that if this was MS, you'd see such hell raised here that has not been seen before...
Based on everything else I've read in the comments, Apple does not make all of its software backwards compatible. By doing such, they are making users upgrade to use the latest software. If you're okay with paying, that's great, but it represents a significant departure from the accepted practice of backward compatibility in OSes and applications.
Then the simple counter argument is that the difference between 98 and XP is much, much vaster than the difference between .2 and .3. Simply put, it's not really comparable, as its not really a .1 update but not a 1.0 update.
Okay, so your stance is based on technical legal reasoning and not based on an overall system of beliefs that hold the same for everyone.
Analogy broken. I can start up Windows 2000 and don't get messages that say I need Windows XP to run this application.
Oh, but this is software and no physical manufacturing analogies apply.
Yup. So why did you fucking bother?
For the record, MS 'upgrades' are actually full installers. If you go to install an 'upgrade' onto a clean machine (Let's say the upgrade is 98->ME), it will first ask you for a 98 serial #, then proceed. The only thing that is changed is it "makes sure" you have bought the base version that the upgrade is for.
I should disclaim that I have not tried every combination of Windows upgrades, so this may not be true for all of them.
10.2 and 10.3 are akin to Windows 2000 and Windows XP - very similar, but different.
Analogy fails. I have never started my Windows 2000 box and installed a program only to see "REQUIRES WINDOWS XP".
It's telling that you mention two programs made by Apple. These are, essentially, new features of the OS.
Are they? Is a web browser allowed to be part of the OS for Apple but not for Microsoft?
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you want to guarantee that you can use the latest and greatest of every piece of software you find, you need to keep your OS up-to-date
There's a difference between keeping it "up-to-date", and paying a $120 fee to Apple every year just to run the latest applications.
Should teach me to hit submit instead of preview.
Anyway, to say that a user has put themselves into a dynamic software mode is ridiculous. That is simply the nature of 99% of the software released today. Even large programs suffer from this, and fixes are released daily for many of the programs we all use, no matter what platform, no matter what product. In order to completely avoid this, as you suggest, a user must select those programs which have already been thoroughly, thoroughly tested, to ensure that no upgrades or other changes to the software will be required. To hold a personal user to such a standard is ludicrous.
While I understand what you are saying, you are choosing to live in a dynamic-software mode, which is probably not a good mode to live your life in if you don't like to pay for upgrades.
Oh, please! The nature of software development is what causes this, and to say that all you need to do is "make a few trade-offs" to avoid it is ridiculous. Software is updated for more reasons than just usability and flashy graphics. If an application developer finds out that there's a bug in his program but doesn't want to maintain an OS X 10.2 and OS X 10.3 version, he's going to fix the bug and move forward with an OS X 10.3 version, leaving anyone still using the old version behind.
This situation arose because of the way software development works. It is simply not possible to eliminate all bugs from a program. It is possible, with great time and expense, to ensure that the program will run bug free for all but the most outrageous situations. However, many smaller developers, including open source developers, simply do not have the time or resources to exhaustively test their programs. This leads to a strung out development process where incremental updates for minor problems are released frequently.
Granted, there's DLL hell on windows as well, but the problem is far smaller than on mac and linux.
I hope you don't believe that "DLL hell" still exists as it did, say, 4-8 years ago. I don't mean to be insulting or condesceding. Some *nix users departed from Windows so long ago, and have isolated themselves from it so much, that they just assume that it never got any better. It's very rare that a Windows application is downloaded, installed, and doesn't 'just work'.
Okay, fine. Let's go so far as to call 10.2 OS XI, and 10.3 OS XII.
Do you agree with Apple's strategy of releasing OS X, releasing OS XI a year later for $120, and then requiring OS XI for the applications which are considered a strong part of what I'll call "The Mac Advantage"? Do you agree with them, about another year later, releasing OS XII and doing the same thing?
Call it what you want, OS X 10.3, OS X 2004, OS X SP2, OS XII... it's still making your users pay $120 each year.
I don't know about selling, but you do not need to submit any financial information to bid.
How about I just show you the thousands of IR ports that are very small and will not require any major change to the form factor of the device?
You said in another post here you're only looking for a choice. Fine. I'll tell you what I've been telling every other naysayer I've met: step aside, and let us who wish to proceed with progress. You know as well as I that society is not going to wake up one day and require one of these devices. One does not even need a cellphone or computer in this society. If you don't want to use it, don't.
So you invented some wacky scenarios to prove me "wrong." In scenario one, first the parents are stupid (for 'forgetting' to disable features), then the kid is a super genius (for social engineering the cell phone company into turning them back on - ha!). In scenario two, if someone stores the PIN on the phone, they are stupid. Sure, you can't write the ATM number on the card, but many cards come with a paper sleeve you could write the number on, or you could use your own piece of paper with the PIN on it and keep it with the card in your wallet. Voila. Stupid people will be stupid people, and that's no reason to stop the rest of us.
The electric window scenario sounds like you've got me beat, except for a few simple points.
1. A car window is not a door into your house. It is simply not 'required'. The only situation I can think of where it's anywhere near important is if you happen to drive into a lake. Don't forget that it's also possible to kick out the windows.
2. Cars are made as cheap as possible. The inclusion of both systems would require more engineering than deemed necessary by the auto makers, and I tend to agree. I happen to have a broken passenger side motor, and it's rarely a problem. Driver's side I would just get fixed.
Anyway, if the backup to an electronic lock is a keyed lock (and it most likely is), you haven't defeated the purpose. Many people store keys to their houses hidden on the property. If you don't want to do that, you can always kick in a window (hell, that's your solution if you lose your key today and don't have a backup on the property/with a friend).
From most accounts, it seems like much of Iraq's infrastructure was already in need of replacement. Also recall that the current plan only calls for half of the reconstruction money to be provided as a loan. Also recall that the Iraqis as a people are filthy rich. Not material wealth, like in the USA, but their potential for wealth, as a nation, is gigantic. It just needs a bit of investment first. Why should the USA provide that investment when the Iraqis will profit?
How does your scenario prove that the lowtech solution is the best? Surely any system would have backups in case of failure, or else people wouldn't buy it.
Wow. Okay scenario one is simple, turn this off on your kid's phone! Whew. That was hard! Kids have had phone lines for years, and typically have the 900 and long distance shut off just for this reason. If this can't be done on cellular systems, then it's a severe lack of foresight by the designers of the system (failure to emulate land-line features of the network, which customers will invariably want).
Now onto scenario two, it's no different from an ATM pin, so there is no need to address the issue. PINs are considered secure in our society. If a few people aren't secure with a PIN, they shouldn't use this, or an ATM card.
Both of your scenarios present trivial speed bumps on the path to a useful system.
..cellphones weren't already complex enough? I don't carry a Swiss Army Knife or a Leatherman, when all I need is one blade. For the very same reason, I'm strongly against most cluttery "features" like this.
Great 'insightful' analogy except that it's so simply broken. When you add tools to your blade, it gets larger and bulkier. When you add features to your cell phone, it (for the most part) does not change size, shape or weight.