Why is it that you people insist on trying to push the notion that Apple only pushes aesthetics... as if theres nothing else like ease of use, faster, smaller, more efficient, quieter etc...
The parent post is a thinly veiled troll which trys to imply that Apple is only about flash....
Sigh...
Welcome to the Over the Hill Gang, design bugs that have been around so long that we've begun to think of them as folk heros. However, the usual requirement for turning a public enemy into a folk hero is death, not longevity, and so it should be for these worthies: Their executions are long overdue. These bugs aren't necessarily fatal. The are all at minimum highly irritating, and they have all survived for a minimum of five years or five product release cycles, whichever came first.
In some cases, the bugs have outlasted the original developers, persisting so long that their successors may not even realize they are bugs--they seem the result of "natural laws." In other cases, the developers know these bugs full well, but refuse to address them. These all need to be addressed, and that address should be far out of town.
Bug Name: Power Failure Crash
Duration: >30 years
Supplier: Desktop computer manufacturers
Alias: "Oh, Sh--!"
Product: Desktop computers worldwide
Bug: If the computer loses power for more than a few thousanths of a second, it throws everything away.
Class of error: "That's the way Grandpa did it..."
Principle: Protect the User's Work
Discussion: Somehow, the most destructive act a computer can carry out, other than destroying the contents of a hard disk, got "grandfathered in." Somehow it became OK for computers to just die if the power fails.
If cars modelled this behavior, you might drive your car from New York to Miami, run out of gas in Fort Lauderdale, 10 miles from your destination, and suddenly find yourself back in New York.
Immediate Fix: Web Developers
Store (encrypted) information in cookies even before transfer to the server, so information is preserved from all but the most serious "melt-downs."
Proposed Fix: Application Developers
Convert your existing software and write new software to perform Continuous Save, so users cannot lose more than the last few characters typed or gestures entered. Do not fail to provide sufficient Undo and Revert facilities enabling users to get back to where they were before they started doing the wrong thing.
For all the drawbacks of the crude system most applications have had until now, one advantage was that new drafts did not take the place of old until we said so.
Oh, and by the way, a dialog saying, "This action cannot be undone. OK Cancel," is not a suitable substitute for a Revert facility for anything at any time.
Proposed Fix: OS's
Build support for Continous Save and Revert into the toolbox.
Proposed Fix: Computer Hardware
Add very short term batteries or tantalum capacitors to systems with volatile memory with enough power to dump the memory to disk and go into hibernation, perhaps 30 to 45 second worth.
Bug first observed: 1976
Observer: Tog
Bug reported to Apple: 5 Mar 1985. Quote from that memo:
The age of computers that die when the power goes off will fade to an interesting footnote in history, just as radio gave way to TV. The question is not whether Apple will [address the problem], but when. I believe the time is now....We have the opportunity to add another dimension to computers; let us take it.
Should happen any day now...
Bug on list since:List inception: 1 Dec 2004
Bug Name:The Macintosh Dock
Duration:Four and counting
Supplier:Apple Computer, Inc.
Alias:"The Cool Demo"
Product:Mac OS X
Bug:There are actually nine separate and distinct design bugs in the Dock, probably a record for a single object. You can read about them all in my Article, "The Top 9 Reasons the Dock Still Sucks."
Class of error:Confusing a demo with a product
Principle:Demos and products are two separate entities. The Demo's purpose in life is to help sell the product. The product's purpose is to serve the user.
Proposed Fix:Leave the Dock just as is. It looks great on stage durin
You can copy items to the file system.
Music files copied to the file system wont show up in the iPod's play list, but if you've got enough sapce... just dupe all your songs... one in the music library on the iPod and another in the file system.
No, its because the server is shared.
The site's normal traffic doesn't deem a dedicated server yet... though I'm seriously considering it for times like this.
It's an exciting era in the Berkeley Software Distribution world; indeed, things started off with a litigious bang over a decade ago, but now BSD solutions are more varied than ever before and offer the user heretofore unprecedented choice and power. So many are the options today that it's time for a roll call from the various distributions. Paul Webb submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews which takes a look at what each BSD has to offer and also looks at where each is going.
--
Each of the four major BSD projects are pushing forward with development and experiencing growth, diversifying the Open Source playing field's offerings Let's take a look at what each project is up to these days.
FreeBSD
FreeBSD is in a precarious state. While it has almost hit critical mass in the corporate world, their latest growing pains have left potential adopters confused. The new FreeBSD 5 branch offers some exciting technology, generally regarded as comparable with or superior to what is offered in Linux. The FreeBSD foundation is still upgrading its FreeBSD 4.x line and suggesting its use for production environments over FreeBSD 5. The reasons for this are very simple -- FreeBSD 5 won't be ready for prime time until FreeBSD 5.4 or 5.5 -- but users are left confused and timid.
FreeBSD's last major release, which now sits highly optimized at version 4.10, works just as well as always. For systems already running with FreeBSD 4.x that see no need to adopt the new technology in FreeBSD 5 or jump to Linux, this operating system is a godsend in stability and continued support. FreeBSD 4.11 is scheduled for a February '05 release, while plans for FreeBSD 4.12 are on the backburner should FreeBSD 5 not achieve -STABLE status by the fourth quarter of 2005. But what if you need the technology available in FreeBSD 5 and don't want to jump to Linux?
FreeBSD 5, currently available at FreeBSD 5.2.1 with FreeBSD 5.3 in late beta, tantalizes the BSD world with the culmination of several year's hard work and narrow escapes. Back in the late Nineties, when WindRiver bought BSD/OS (a closed-source BSD operating system owned by the now-defunct BSDI), FreeBSD users were promised a next-generation BSD made possible by crossing the ultra-robust corporate OS with its Open Source counterpart. While WindRiver let go of its plans leaving the future of FreeBSD in peril, the realization of its goal is almost here thanks to the FreeBSD community and Apple Computer, Inc.'s contribution of FreeBSD code.
That almost is a killer, though, in that it now causes potential users to look elsewhere for modern operating system features elsewhere until FreeBSD 5 is blessed as stable. Given FreeBSD's track record and the corporate sponsors now behind its operating system, however, it has a bright future ahead of it despite these stumbling blocks. Sadly, the same can't be said for its two little brothers, NetBSD and OpenBSD.
NetBSD
NetBSD's claims to fame aren't its optimization or secure code -- it's instead known for running on a wider variety of platforms than any other operating system out there, including Linux. NetBSD's binary releases include support for an amazing 40 platforms and an additional 12 platforms in the source code. In other words, it runs on everything but the kitchen sink. NetBSD forked from the 386BSD/4.4 BSD merger in 1993 and continued on its own in parallel to FreeBSD since then, albeit at a slower pace. It's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005.
Those familiar with NetBSD swear by it, though its use in serious environments is limited. It is not secure and device driver support is paltry at best. NetBSD's true usefulness comes in providing develo
The reason is because one is an OS X installation screen (which requires a boot from the CD... thus making the resolution go down) and the other is a screen shot of the standard desktop booted from the hard drive.... which allows the resolution to be set by the user.
There are others OS's, and not all of them are desktop OS's. There are amazingly some Windows 3.1 users out there,
Google's OS stats broke down each of the Windows operating systems (including 3.1) into a seperate figure. if memory serves... it was approximatel 3%.
"*BSD, OS/2, BeOS and Amiga users."
I don't believe these operating systems... even combined total 5% of those that access google.... That is assuming we adopt the notion that Linux and Mac operating systems combined only generated 4%.
"Then there are all the WAP platforms (ie Palm), odd things like WebTV, Dreamcast, and more. They may also group things they can't identify into that 5%."
While this is more plausable, I still don't believe that this number... in combination with the more obscure OSes are accessing Google to reach a 5% figure.
Google's Zeitgeist service is sometimes used by news sources as a resource to generate install-base (don't call it market share) statistics for operating systems. osViews contacted Google to bring some clarity to questionable aspects of the OS statistic to which Google said that Zeitgeist is only a fun search inquiry resource and should not be used to generate statistical information. A couple days after that inquiry, we found that Google has since removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service. --
Many of us are familiar with Google's Zeitgeist resource which analyses search patters, trends and miscellaneous surprises as how it relates to the way people search the Google search engine. Up until recently, the company also provided operating system statistics of those that accessed Google.
Many news sources have started using Zeitgeist as a means to get statistics that suggest operating system install base. Because of this, osViews repeatedly contacted Google to get clarity for the statistic, which provided some odd stats. (example: 5% of the OS demographic was comprised of multiple OSes which Google categorized as "other."
We thought this odd because Mac and Linux OSes TOGETHER didn't reach 5%. How could the more obscure OSes (even combined) create a larger group unless Linux or Mac were being subdivided by the Google stat. Example: Google's 3% Mac statistic might theoretically only represent OS X users as opposed to all Macintosh users.
Google replied back saying that they are not to talk to the media in any way throughout the "quiet period" that must precede a company's initial public offering, but did say that Zeitgeist is not meant to be regarded as a statistical resource to gauge a demographic of any type. Rather, it is simply a fun resource to analyze search patterns.
After alerting the search company to the fact that many news organizations have started using Zeitgeist's OS stats resource as a means of generating operating system install base statistics, the company replied back with the same response.
Today we noticed that Google has removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
Google's Zeitgeist service is sometimes used by news sources as a resource to generate install-base (don't call it market share) statistics for operating systems. osViews contacted Google to bring some clarity to questionable aspects of the OS statistic to which Google said that Zeitgeist is only a fun search inquiry resource and should not be used to generate statistical information. A couple days after that inquiry, we found that Google has since removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
--
Many of us are familiar with Google's Zeitgeist resource which analyses search patters, trends and miscellaneous surprises as how it relates to the way people search the Google search engine. Up until recently, the company also provided operating system statistics of those that accessed Google.
Many news sources have started using Zeitgeist as a means to get statistics that suggest operating system install base. Because of this, osViews repeatedly contacted Google to get clarity for the statistic, which provided some odd stats. (example: 5% of the OS demographic was comprised of multiple OSes which Google categorized as "other."
We thought this odd because Mac and Linux OSes TOGETHER didn't reach 5%. How could the more obscure OSes (even combined) create a larger group unless Linux or Mac were being subdivided by the Google stat. Example: Google's 3% Mac statistic might theoretically only represent OS X users as opposed to all Macintosh users.
Google replied back saying that they are not to talk to the media in any way throughout the "quiet period" that must precede a company's initial public offering, but did say that Zeitgeist is not meant to be regarded as a statistical resource to gauge a demographic of any type. Rather, it is simply a fun resource to analyze search patterns.
After alerting the search company to the fact that many news organizations have started using Zeitgeist's OS stats resource as a means of generating operating system install base statistics, the company replied back with the same response.
Today we noticed that Google has removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
I am the owner of osViews.com and the individual that submitted this slashdot post. It appears as if the article got slashdotted.
Unfortunately, I don't have a second copy of the article otherwise I would post it here. My Slashdot summarization pretty much captured the gist of the editorial, however there is one part that should be mentioned.
In Google's Zeitgeist statistic there was a 5% figure that represented what the OS statistic as "other". I thought that this was bizarre because the Linux and Mac statistics even combined were less than the "other" which encapsulated them all.
I don't believe that the more obscure OSes make up a number that is larger than both Linux and mac combined. This is what prompted me to call Google to get some clarity.
i thought that perhaps Google was doing some subdivisions within the Linux or Mac stats.
For example, Google might have only been reporting 3% to represent the OS X installations as opposed to all Mac users and then grouped the non OS X users (Mac Pre OS X) into the aforementioned "other" category.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's textedit already opens .doc files.
Why is it that you people insist on trying to push the notion that Apple only pushes aesthetics... as if theres nothing else like ease of use, faster, smaller, more efficient, quieter etc... The parent post is a thinly veiled troll which trys to imply that Apple is only about flash.... Sigh...
Welcome to the Over the Hill Gang, design bugs that have been around so long that we've begun to think of them as folk heros. However, the usual requirement for turning a public enemy into a folk hero is death, not longevity, and so it should be for these worthies: Their executions are long overdue. These bugs aren't necessarily fatal. The are all at minimum highly irritating, and they have all survived for a minimum of five years or five product release cycles, whichever came first.
In some cases, the bugs have outlasted the original developers, persisting so long that their successors may not even realize they are bugs--they seem the result of "natural laws." In other cases, the developers know these bugs full well, but refuse to address them. These all need to be addressed, and that address should be far out of town.
Bug Name: Power Failure Crash
Duration: >30 years
Supplier: Desktop computer manufacturers
Alias: "Oh, Sh--!"
Product: Desktop computers worldwide
Bug: If the computer loses power for more than a few thousanths of a second, it throws everything away.
Class of error: "That's the way Grandpa did it..."
Principle: Protect the User's Work
Discussion: Somehow, the most destructive act a computer can carry out, other than destroying the contents of a hard disk, got "grandfathered in." Somehow it became OK for computers to just die if the power fails.
If cars modelled this behavior, you might drive your car from New York to Miami, run out of gas in Fort Lauderdale, 10 miles from your destination, and suddenly find yourself back in New York.
Immediate Fix: Web Developers
Store (encrypted) information in cookies even before transfer to the server, so information is preserved from all but the most serious "melt-downs."
Proposed Fix: Application Developers
Convert your existing software and write new software to perform Continuous Save, so users cannot lose more than the last few characters typed or gestures entered. Do not fail to provide sufficient Undo and Revert facilities enabling users to get back to where they were before they started doing the wrong thing.
For all the drawbacks of the crude system most applications have had until now, one advantage was that new drafts did not take the place of old until we said so.
Oh, and by the way, a dialog saying, "This action cannot be undone. OK Cancel," is not a suitable substitute for a Revert facility for anything at any time.
Proposed Fix: OS's
Build support for Continous Save and Revert into the toolbox.
Proposed Fix: Computer Hardware
Add very short term batteries or tantalum capacitors to systems with volatile memory with enough power to dump the memory to disk and go into hibernation, perhaps 30 to 45 second worth.
Bug first observed: 1976
Observer: Tog
Bug reported to Apple: 5 Mar 1985. Quote from that memo:
The age of computers that die when the power goes off will fade to an interesting footnote in history, just as radio gave way to TV. The question is not whether Apple will [address the problem], but when. I believe the time is now....We
have the opportunity to add another dimension to computers; let us take it.
Should happen any day now...
Bug on list since:List inception: 1 Dec 2004
Bug Name:The Macintosh Dock
Duration:Four and counting
Supplier:Apple Computer, Inc.
Alias:"The Cool Demo"
Product:Mac OS X
Bug:There are actually nine separate and distinct design bugs in the Dock, probably a record for a single object. You can read about them all in my Article, "The Top 9 Reasons the Dock Still Sucks."
Class of error:Confusing a demo with a product
Principle:Demos and products are two separate entities. The Demo's purpose in life is to help sell the product. The product's purpose is to serve the user.
Proposed Fix:Leave the Dock just as is. It looks great on stage durin
my consern?
You can copy items to the file system. Music files copied to the file system wont show up in the iPod's play list, but if you've got enough sapce... just dupe all your songs... one in the music library on the iPod and another in the file system.
No, its because the server is shared. The site's normal traffic doesn't deem a dedicated server yet... though I'm seriously considering it for times like this.
Contributed by: Paul Webb
:: Open Content
It's an exciting era in the Berkeley Software Distribution world; indeed, things started off with a litigious bang over a decade ago, but now BSD solutions are more varied than ever before and offer the user heretofore unprecedented choice and power. So many are the options today that it's time for a roll call from the various distributions. Paul Webb submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews which takes a look at what each BSD has to offer and also looks at where each is going.
--
Each of the four major BSD projects are pushing forward with development and experiencing growth, diversifying the Open Source playing field's offerings Let's take a look at what each project is up to these days.
FreeBSD
FreeBSD is in a precarious state. While it has almost hit critical mass in the corporate world, their latest growing pains have left potential adopters confused. The new FreeBSD 5 branch offers some exciting technology, generally regarded as comparable with or superior to what is offered in Linux. The FreeBSD foundation is still upgrading its FreeBSD 4.x line and suggesting its use for production environments over FreeBSD 5. The reasons for this are very simple -- FreeBSD 5 won't be ready for prime time until FreeBSD 5.4 or 5.5 -- but users are left confused and timid.
FreeBSD's last major release, which now sits highly optimized at version 4.10, works just as well as always. For systems already running with FreeBSD 4.x that see no need to adopt the new technology in FreeBSD 5 or jump to Linux, this operating system is a godsend in stability and continued support. FreeBSD 4.11 is scheduled for a February '05 release, while plans for FreeBSD 4.12 are on the backburner should FreeBSD 5 not achieve -STABLE status by the fourth quarter of 2005. But what if you need the technology available in FreeBSD 5 and don't want to jump to Linux?
FreeBSD 5, currently available at FreeBSD 5.2.1 with FreeBSD 5.3 in late beta, tantalizes the BSD world with the culmination of several year's hard work and narrow escapes. Back in the late Nineties, when WindRiver bought BSD/OS (a closed-source BSD operating system owned by the now-defunct BSDI), FreeBSD users were promised a next-generation BSD made possible by crossing the ultra-robust corporate OS with its Open Source counterpart. While WindRiver let go of its plans leaving the future of FreeBSD in peril, the realization of its goal is almost here thanks to the FreeBSD community and Apple Computer, Inc.'s contribution of FreeBSD code.
That almost is a killer, though, in that it now causes potential users to look elsewhere for modern operating system features elsewhere until FreeBSD 5 is blessed as stable. Given FreeBSD's track record and the corporate sponsors now behind its operating system, however, it has a bright future ahead of it despite these stumbling blocks. Sadly, the same can't be said for its two little brothers, NetBSD and OpenBSD.
NetBSD
NetBSD's claims to fame aren't its optimization or secure code -- it's instead known for running on a wider variety of platforms than any other operating system out there, including Linux. NetBSD's binary releases include support for an amazing 40 platforms and an additional 12 platforms in the source code. In other words, it runs on everything but the kitchen sink. NetBSD forked from the 386BSD/4.4 BSD merger in 1993 and continued on its own in parallel to FreeBSD since then, albeit at a slower pace. It's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005.
Those familiar with NetBSD swear by it, though its use in serious environments is limited. It is not secure and device driver support is paltry at best. NetBSD's true usefulness comes in providing develo
The reason is because one is an OS X installation screen (which requires a boot from the CD... thus making the resolution go down) and the other is a screen shot of the standard desktop booted from the hard drive.... which allows the resolution to be set by the user.
He likes to play Gaymes
Don't forget, he's got God mode on.
Thankfuly, Apple's iPod batteries have a long life and are in fact replaceable.
Google's stats NEVER said that the Mac was less than 3% of computers in use.
Hmmm... you're right.
We would?
They don't include OS stats in those archives.
I haden't thought of that.
That makes more sense. Would those bots characterized by an operating system though?
There are others OS's, and not all of them are desktop OS's. There are amazingly some Windows 3.1 users out there,
... in combination with the more obscure OSes are accessing Google to reach a 5% figure.
Google's OS stats broke down each of the Windows operating systems (including 3.1) into a seperate figure. if memory serves... it was approximatel 3%.
"*BSD, OS/2, BeOS and Amiga users."
I don't believe these operating systems... even combined total 5% of those that access google.... That is assuming we adopt the notion that Linux and Mac operating systems combined only generated 4%.
"Then there are all the WAP platforms (ie Palm), odd things like WebTV, Dreamcast, and more. They may also group things they can't identify into that 5%."
While this is more plausable, I still don't believe that this number
Google's Zeitgeist service is sometimes used by news sources as a resource to generate install-base (don't call it market share) statistics for operating systems. osViews contacted Google to bring some clarity to questionable aspects of the OS statistic to which Google said that Zeitgeist is only a fun search inquiry resource and should not be used to generate statistical information. A couple days after that inquiry, we found that Google has since removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
--
Many of us are familiar with Google's Zeitgeist resource which analyses search patters, trends and miscellaneous surprises as how it relates to the way people search the Google search engine. Up until recently, the company also provided operating system statistics of those that accessed Google.
Many news sources have started using Zeitgeist as a means to get statistics that suggest operating system install base. Because of this, osViews repeatedly contacted Google to get clarity for the statistic, which provided some odd stats. (example: 5% of the OS demographic was comprised of multiple OSes which Google categorized as "other."
We thought this odd because Mac and Linux OSes TOGETHER didn't reach 5%. How could the more obscure OSes (even combined) create a larger group unless Linux or Mac were being subdivided by the Google stat. Example: Google's 3% Mac statistic might theoretically only represent OS X users as opposed to all Macintosh users.
Google replied back saying that they are not to talk to the media in any way throughout the "quiet period" that must precede a company's initial public offering, but did say that Zeitgeist is not meant to be regarded as a statistical resource to gauge a demographic of any type. Rather, it is simply a fun resource to analyze search patterns.
After alerting the search company to the fact that many news organizations have started using Zeitgeist's OS stats resource as a means of generating operating system install base statistics, the company replied back with the same response.
Today we noticed that Google has removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
Google's Zeitgeist service is sometimes used by news sources as a resource to generate install-base (don't call it market share) statistics for operating systems. osViews contacted Google to bring some clarity to questionable aspects of the OS statistic to which Google said that Zeitgeist is only a fun search inquiry resource and should not be used to generate statistical information. A couple days after that inquiry, we found that Google has since removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service. -- Many of us are familiar with Google's Zeitgeist resource which analyses search patters, trends and miscellaneous surprises as how it relates to the way people search the Google search engine. Up until recently, the company also provided operating system statistics of those that accessed Google. Many news sources have started using Zeitgeist as a means to get statistics that suggest operating system install base. Because of this, osViews repeatedly contacted Google to get clarity for the statistic, which provided some odd stats. (example: 5% of the OS demographic was comprised of multiple OSes which Google categorized as "other." We thought this odd because Mac and Linux OSes TOGETHER didn't reach 5%. How could the more obscure OSes (even combined) create a larger group unless Linux or Mac were being subdivided by the Google stat. Example: Google's 3% Mac statistic might theoretically only represent OS X users as opposed to all Macintosh users. Google replied back saying that they are not to talk to the media in any way throughout the "quiet period" that must precede a company's initial public offering, but did say that Zeitgeist is not meant to be regarded as a statistical resource to gauge a demographic of any type. Rather, it is simply a fun resource to analyze search patterns. After alerting the search company to the fact that many news organizations have started using Zeitgeist's OS stats resource as a means of generating operating system install base statistics, the company replied back with the same response. Today we noticed that Google has removed the OS stats from the Zeitgeist service.
osViews!
I am the owner of osViews.com and the individual that submitted this slashdot post. It appears as if the article got slashdotted.
Unfortunately, I don't have a second copy of the article otherwise I would post it here. My Slashdot summarization pretty much captured the gist of the editorial, however there is one part that should be mentioned.
In Google's Zeitgeist statistic there was a 5% figure that represented what the OS statistic as "other". I thought that this was bizarre because the Linux and Mac statistics even combined were less than the "other" which encapsulated them all.
I don't believe that the more obscure OSes make up a number that is larger than both Linux and mac combined. This is what prompted me to call Google to get some clarity.
i thought that perhaps Google was doing some subdivisions within the Linux or Mac stats.
For example, Google might have only been reporting 3% to represent the OS X installations as opposed to all Mac users and then grouped the non OS X users (Mac Pre OS X) into the aforementioned "other" category.
And what if I wanted to take some of your intalectual or physical property?... Why shouldn't I be allowed to?
the above post is a troll...
there were never any yellow or pink iMacs. if he worked at the Apple store like he claims to have done... then he would have known this.
enlighten us then please... oh wise one.
Why would you want to ditch OS X for Solaris?