That's not an explanation of anything that's happened since the beginning of time. Of course, plenty of cities and events named in the bible are historical. No one's disputing that. It's the bible's explanation of how things came to be that's pure shit.
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib
There's an interesting story about that. Contrary to common Christian belief, the male skeleton does not have one less rib than the female skeleton. But male mammals, including apes, commonly have a bone in their penises called a "baculum". Whether that's related to the term "boner", I couldn't say. So one interpretation of the bible is that it was actually Adam's penis bone that God took to make Eve. And that the shame he gave them wasn't about original sin at all, but simply that he removed their bodily hair. And that's how man came from the apes, not by evolution.
Complete bollocks of course, but as good as any other twisted version of a stupid bible story.
And I believe that evolution occurs, but evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.
Neither does the bible.
Science has accurately explained a hell of a lot of other things that have happened since the beginning of time though. But the bible hasn't.
Apple has supported the concept of OSS in very many projects. Including open sourcing some of the projects Apple started from scratch. And huge numbers of developer contributions to others. And hosting some more.
Ingratitude is exactly the word.
Apple may well have harmed Linux, but only on the basis of Linux not being able to compete on quality for OSX. And thus many people who want *mix on the desktop adopt OSX rather than Linux.
"Popularization of Curated Computing" does nothing whatsoever to stop Linux and other OSS platforms doing their own non-curated software distribution. Again the OSS world only loses out because their ideal way is not what most people like. OSS can't win in fair competition because the quality is too low. And it always will be because there's no shared vision.
But you seem to think that people complaining that Apple have effectively removed Linux support are complete twats
I've said nothing to that effect. I've been on Slashdot about 13 years, I've had plenty of reason to identify a certain minority as twats. I'm talking about the group that identify them selves as open sourcers, who always want something for nothing, and always criticise Apple in every Apple related story, with no regard for the truth.
This CUPS story I'm describing as effect for many years of cretinous behaviour.
Well, yes. If you look into the history of patents then they've pretty much been invented since day 1 to be abused, so in that you are correct.
If it the patent system that you feel is wrong, then that isn't Apple's fault.
"They come up with an innovation for their products, they patent it to restrict others copying their innovation." That is very rare. What Apple do generally design well-integrated products which are solidly produced (generally not especially buggy) and also popularise existing, but otherwise almost unused ideas (e.g. multitouch), or ideas from other areas (magnetic power connectors). Very rarely do they come up with inventions.
I said innovations, not inventions. What you describe - taking existing ideas and putting them together in a new combination to make a unique product is exactly what innovation is.
So what, pray tell is this?
In Britain it would be called a registered design. In America it is called a design patent. Protecting the particular aesthetic design of a product is exactly what it's intended for. It's to stop someone producing an exact copy of an iPhone, but with a picture of a banana on the back.
It's not patenting a black rounded rectangle. And by yourself promoting that same stupid meme, you've joined the cretins.
And I'd also like to note that it looks awfully similar to the HP-Compaq TC1000 with the keyboard detached, which was released in 2003, a whole year before Apple filed a patent on a strikingly similar design. Basically, Apple managed to patent a design invented by someone else and are busy trying to defend that using lawsuits. That's reprehensible behaviour by any standards.
And that is yet another example of the exact cretinous behaviour I'm describing. That product is different in many ways from the Apple iPhone design patent drawings that you yourself linked to.
For whom? You because you enjoy the misfortune of others?
Schadenfreude is great when the misfortune is happening to complete twats.
So, you think their abuse of the patent system is legit and all the negative comments are just "bitching"?
This has nothing to do with patents. Apple own CUPS and can do what they like wit it. That's valid copyright, not patents.
In other news, Apple is using patents in exactly the way they are intended to be used. They come up with an innovation for their products, they patent it to restrict others copying their innovation. Of course the minority on slashdot who are cretins try to claim (and maybe even believe) that Apple has patented the black rounded rectangle, and other such bollocks. Again, the increasing rage of such cretins is quite entertaining.
They also pushed the worldwide adoption of: 3.5 inch floppies, CD roms, all in one PCs, ultra mini PCs, SSDs, the ARM processor, LCD displays etc. And thats just the hardware.
I think it's fair to say that Apple don't consider desktop Linux to be a competitor. And they're not persuing the server market very hard. Which poses the question what competitor this is about.
iOS is Apple's biggest OS these days. And mobile printing is a something that's ripe for improvement - and driverless printing would be particularly useful.
So perhaps they've made the decision that the work they do on printing for iOS they'll keep for themselves, rather than do all the work for Google's Android competitor as well.
That would explain this move as a very, very sensible and understandable business decision, not a matter of penny pinching or spitefulness.
"You're on slashdot, so you're a developer, or at least have some interest in that area."
Wrong in the first sentence, correct in the second.
Than you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, it's so standard that virtually every app I've ever seen, when starting from scratch (I.E. invoked from the screen and not running) displays a splash screen. But this damages your sense of self estem - so you invoke 'no true Scotsman'.
Confirmation bias. When thinking about splash screens, you remember the apps with splash screens. The ones without splash screens don't come to mind.
Anyway, you're not a developer and say you don't have an interesting in development. and thus you're getting arrogant about something you don't understand. I think we're done here. There are plenty of other people that are debating this that actually are developers. People who understand that plenty of things in app design are illusions (what you would call lies.) In fact in all creative endeavours. Do you get angry with CGI in SCI FI movies because you;re being lied to? In fact do you get angry with the TV, because it's not really displaying moving pictures, but just a rapid succession of stills? Ah, don't bother answering.
Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated.
That argument is a red herring. A properly done launch image for your app would include the blue area, and the button shapes. But there would be no labels on the buttons. So the unavailability is communicated in the standard.
The reason it's done like that is because launch screens are not localised. Your method fails to cope with internationalization. That's another of it's faults.
Actually that cancels all of the argument in this post. And I note that you were unable to come up with any other way that your splash screen with app name/version number/copyright message benefitted the user. In fact I see that that information is already the first thing the user gets if they hit the info button in the toolbar. It seems to be there in the splash screen for nothing more than pride on your part.
The question of benefiting the user seems to be a red herring. The only question is benefitting Apple or benefiting myself.
I'm in stunned disbelief that you actually think that way. The HIG is there to describe best practices for giving the best user experience to users. If Apple's way makes it seem like the device is quicker, that benefits all three of you, the user and Apple. If you don't see that it does have that effect, then how on earth are you saying it's for Apple's benefit?
Drop the ego. You don't know better than Apple's UX designers. They do UX testing. You don't.
What's bad is inconsistent behaviour. If splash screens were a standard thing, would they be perceived differently? Perhaps, but I don't think it would be ideal
I'm not saying the inconsistency is because of different apps. I'm saying when you click the icon of a specific app, sometimes you'll get a splash screen (If the app is restarting) and sometimes you won't (if it's already loaded in the background). Part of the philosophy of iOS is to hide this difference. And that's one of the reasons splash screens are not recommended.
My app behaves precisely as Apple intends apps to behave.
Not quite.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
That's a halfway house between the launch screen Apple recommends and a splash screen. It's not as bad as a full on splash screen. It's not as good as the apple recommended launch screen.
What benefit to the user do you think you're giving by giving the app name, version and copyright notice? What advantage that makes you think you know better than the Apple recommendation? That make you think your way is better than the way it's done in Apple's apps?
I've already pointed out what the detriment to the user is. Inconsistency. You're drawing attention to the random fact of whether the app is just being switched to or whether it's being restarted. Of course these two states will always be different in terms of time taken. But there's no need to draw attention to it, and ever reason to minimise that difference.
Having said that, from the screenshots your app does look nice. And your compromise splash screen doesn't sound like the worst of UI mistakes. I wouldn't be criticising at all but for the general point that splash screens are a bad idea.
You're saying your iOS Calculator app has a different experience when you switch to it, depending on whether its still running, or it was killed in the background sometime since the last time I used it.
Design flaw.
I'm afraid you didn't understand Apple's reasoning behind launch screens. And why they advise against splash screens.
Unless you happen to be the millionaire owner of Angry Birds or similar, I suggest the prick is right. You can program, I bet you can't do successful marketing. There are millions of apps, there are far fewer that have been big successes.
(Yes, I am being a devil's advocate. But there's a certain amount of truth in it. Why the hell do so many programmers think they are the only ones with brains and skills?)
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of wrong-headded crap is that? If people do immoral things it is their fault regardless of whether they are legal.
Immoral? Get a fucking grip.
I was going to post a long rebuttal, but you're clearly either a paid shill or have decided to become an apologist for reasons of your own.
I think I make my point. You're one of the cretins, for the reasons I spelled out in detail.
That's not an explanation of anything that's happened since the beginning of time. Of course, plenty of cities and events named in the bible are historical. No one's disputing that. It's the bible's explanation of how things came to be that's pure shit.
There's intelligent people and stupid people in both parties.
True. But it's only in the Republican party where the stupid people win primaries.
No, the Bible most clearly says why *and* how. It says God spontaneously created all of the animals and Adam, and then created Eve from Adam's rib
There's an interesting story about that. Contrary to common Christian belief, the male skeleton does not have one less rib than the female skeleton. But male mammals, including apes, commonly have a bone in their penises called a "baculum". Whether that's related to the term "boner", I couldn't say. So one interpretation of the bible is that it was actually Adam's penis bone that God took to make Eve. And that the shame he gave them wasn't about original sin at all, but simply that he removed their bodily hair. And that's how man came from the apes, not by evolution.
Complete bollocks of course, but as good as any other twisted version of a stupid bible story.
And I believe that evolution occurs, but evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.
Neither does the bible.
Science has accurately explained a hell of a lot of other things that have happened since the beginning of time though. But the bible hasn't.
Apple has supported the concept of OSS in very many projects. Including open sourcing some of the projects Apple started from scratch. And huge numbers of developer contributions to others. And hosting some more.
Ingratitude is exactly the word.
Apple may well have harmed Linux, but only on the basis of Linux not being able to compete on quality for OSX. And thus many people who want *mix on the desktop adopt OSX rather than Linux.
"Popularization of Curated Computing" does nothing whatsoever to stop Linux and other OSS platforms doing their own non-curated software distribution. Again the OSS world only loses out because their ideal way is not what most people like. OSS can't win in fair competition because the quality is too low. And it always will be because there's no shared vision.
So did any number of other vendors.
There was no implication that no other company ever pushed forward innovations. But who's done it more than Apple? There isn't any.
I had an "ultra mini PC" long before it occurred to Apple to make one.
Manufacturer and model?
But you seem to think that people complaining that Apple have effectively removed Linux support are complete twats
I've said nothing to that effect. I've been on Slashdot about 13 years, I've had plenty of reason to identify a certain minority as twats. I'm talking about the group that identify them selves as open sourcers, who always want something for nothing, and always criticise Apple in every Apple related story, with no regard for the truth.
This CUPS story I'm describing as effect for many years of cretinous behaviour.
Well, yes. If you look into the history of patents then they've pretty much been invented since day 1 to be abused, so in that you are correct.
If it the patent system that you feel is wrong, then that isn't Apple's fault.
"They come up with an innovation for their products, they patent it to restrict others copying their innovation."
That is very rare. What Apple do generally design well-integrated products which are solidly produced (generally not especially buggy) and also popularise existing, but otherwise almost unused ideas (e.g. multitouch), or ideas from other areas (magnetic power connectors). Very rarely do they come up with inventions.
I said innovations, not inventions. What you describe - taking existing ideas and putting them together in a new combination to make a unique product is exactly what innovation is.
So what, pray tell is this?
In Britain it would be called a registered design. In America it is called a design patent. Protecting the particular aesthetic design of a product is exactly what it's intended for. It's to stop someone producing an exact copy of an iPhone, but with a picture of a banana on the back.
It's not patenting a black rounded rectangle. And by yourself promoting that same stupid meme, you've joined the cretins.
And I'd also like to note that it looks awfully similar to the HP-Compaq TC1000 with the keyboard detached, which was released in 2003, a whole year before Apple filed a patent on a strikingly similar design. Basically, Apple managed to patent a design invented by someone else and are busy trying to defend that using lawsuits. That's reprehensible behaviour by any standards.
And that is yet another example of the exact cretinous behaviour I'm describing. That product is different in many ways from the Apple iPhone design patent drawings that you yourself linked to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tablet_HP_TC-1100.jpg
This shit is exactly why I have schadenfreude over Apple pissing you off by not including your Linux only features in CUPS anymore.
For whom? You because you enjoy the misfortune of others?
Schadenfreude is great when the misfortune is happening to complete twats.
So, you think their abuse of the patent system is legit and all the negative comments are just "bitching"?
This has nothing to do with patents. Apple own CUPS and can do what they like wit it. That's valid copyright, not patents.
In other news, Apple is using patents in exactly the way they are intended to be used. They come up with an innovation for their products, they patent it to restrict others copying their innovation. Of course the minority on slashdot who are cretins try to claim (and maybe even believe) that Apple has patented the black rounded rectangle, and other such bollocks. Again, the increasing rage of such cretins is quite entertaining.
Oh rage! It's like seeing kiddies scream and ball because their parents won't buy them sweeties.
Seriously, the only way I got printing to work on OS X was to share a printer connected to a Windows box.
This would only happen with a cheap Winprinter.
Proper printers have no problems with OSX.
(BTW, Does anyone still make Winprinters? I haven't come across a new one in a long time.)
Apple can do anything they like with CUPS. They own it.
They also pushed the worldwide adoption of:
3.5 inch floppies, CD roms, all in one PCs, ultra mini PCs, SSDs, the ARM processor, LCD displays etc. And thats just the hardware.
I think it's fair to say that Apple don't consider desktop Linux to be a competitor. And they're not persuing the server market very hard. Which poses the question what competitor this is about.
iOS is Apple's biggest OS these days. And mobile printing is a something that's ripe for improvement - and driverless printing would be particularly useful.
So perhaps they've made the decision that the work they do on printing for iOS they'll keep for themselves, rather than do all the work for Google's Android competitor as well.
That would explain this move as a very, very sensible and understandable business decision, not a matter of penny pinching or spitefulness.
Wouldn't it be amusing if the reason for Apple removing Linux support from CUPS is because of all the bitching OSS supporters do about Apple.
I mean, I'm sure it's not that, and it's a purely a business move.
But the idea of the OSS whiners getting their just deserts of their ingratitude is amusing. It's karma.
"You're on slashdot, so you're a developer, or at least have some interest in that area."
Wrong in the first sentence, correct in the second.
Than you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, it's so standard that virtually every app I've ever seen, when starting from scratch (I.E. invoked from the screen and not running) displays a splash screen. But this damages your sense of self estem - so you invoke 'no true Scotsman'.
Confirmation bias. When thinking about splash screens, you remember the apps with splash screens. The ones without splash screens don't come to mind.
Anyway, you're not a developer and say you don't have an interesting in development. and thus you're getting arrogant about something you don't understand. I think we're done here. There are plenty of other people that are debating this that actually are developers. People who understand that plenty of things in app design are illusions (what you would call lies.) In fact in all creative endeavours. Do you get angry with CGI in SCI FI movies because you;re being lied to? In fact do you get angry with the TV, because it's not really displaying moving pictures, but just a rapid succession of stills? Ah, don't bother answering.
Using an unaltered screen shot merely gives the false impression that the app is up and ready, hiding the load and setup time. My variation does no harm to the user, others have expressed that there is a benefit to the user because the unavailability of the user interface is honestly communicated.
That argument is a red herring. A properly done launch image for your app would include the blue area, and the button shapes. But there would be no labels on the buttons. So the unavailability is communicated in the standard.
The reason it's done like that is because launch screens are not localised. Your method fails to cope with internationalization. That's another of it's faults.
Actually that cancels all of the argument in this post. And I note that you were unable to come up with any other way that your splash screen with app name/version number/copyright message benefitted the user. In fact I see that that information is already the first thing the user gets if they hit the info button in the toolbar. It seems to be there in the splash screen for nothing more than pride on your part.
The question of benefiting the user seems to be a red herring. The only question is benefitting Apple or benefiting myself.
I'm in stunned disbelief that you actually think that way. The HIG is there to describe best practices for giving the best user experience to users. If Apple's way makes it seem like the device is quicker, that benefits all three of you, the user and Apple. If you don't see that it does have that effect, then how on earth are you saying it's for Apple's benefit?
Drop the ego. You don't know better than Apple's UX designers. They do UX testing. You don't.
What's bad is inconsistent behaviour. If splash screens were a standard thing, would they be perceived differently? Perhaps, but I don't think it would be ideal
I'm not saying the inconsistency is because of different apps. I'm saying when you click the icon of a specific app, sometimes you'll get a splash screen (If the app is restarting) and sometimes you won't (if it's already loaded in the background). Part of the philosophy of iOS is to hide this difference. And that's one of the reasons splash screens are not recommended.
My app behaves precisely as Apple intends apps to behave.
Not quite.
How my default image may differ from Apple's concept is that it is a screen shot that has been converted to grayscale and dimmed; and has a product name, version and copyright notice positioned over the calculator's main display. Basically I incorporated a visual clue that the user interface is disabled (not up and running to be more accurate) and I use the standard iOS default image as a splash screen.
That's a halfway house between the launch screen Apple recommends and a splash screen. It's not as bad as a full on splash screen. It's not as good as the apple recommended launch screen.
What benefit to the user do you think you're giving by giving the app name, version and copyright notice? What advantage that makes you think you know better than the Apple recommendation? That make you think your way is better than the way it's done in Apple's apps?
I've already pointed out what the detriment to the user is. Inconsistency. You're drawing attention to the random fact of whether the app is just being switched to or whether it's being restarted. Of course these two states will always be different in terms of time taken. But there's no need to draw attention to it, and ever reason to minimise that difference.
Having said that, from the screenshots your app does look nice. And your compromise splash screen doesn't sound like the worst of UI mistakes. I wouldn't be criticising at all but for the general point that splash screens are a bad idea.
The home for that kind of stuff is in the About dialog.
Do you like rhinestones and fringes on your leather jackets too?
You're saying your iOS Calculator app has a different experience when you switch to it, depending on whether its still running, or it was killed in the background sometime since the last time I used it.
Design flaw.
I'm afraid you didn't understand Apple's reasoning behind launch screens. And why they advise against splash screens.
What does it do if the task bar is auto hidden?
A splash creen isn't the only way to give feedback to the user that the computer has responded to your request to got to an app.
What an app screen actually says is this:
WAIT...
And we can do better than that.
Unless you happen to be the millionaire owner of Angry Birds or similar, I suggest the prick is right. You can program, I bet you can't do successful marketing. There are millions of apps, there are far fewer that have been big successes.
(Yes, I am being a devil's advocate. But there's a certain amount of truth in it. Why the hell do so many programmers think they are the only ones with brains and skills?)