Why should Apple go through the trouble of maintaining Safari on the Windows platform just to participate in a browser war?
I bet the reason for the introduction of Safari on Windows is that it will be used to control and communicate with the iPhone. The iPhone will have some kind of web-server that can be used to configure it, download Widgets etc. Otherwise Apple's move doesn't make sense.
BTW, the recent Safari 3.0 update on the Mac also updated the Dashboard.
Vaclav Klaus is annoyed that science does not support his ultra-right political ideology. The senseless and unreflected abuse of natural resources does have a price and he doesn't like to be told. That's the inconvenient truth....
It might not be significant, but during the last few days Safari has silently begun to work with Google Docs. At least the document editor works without problems. The spreadsheet still warns that Safari is not yet supported, but then asks if you want to continue. Before you were met with a "we're working on it" message, but you could not continue.
These facts all hint that Safari indeed will be a central app on the iPhone, and that wordprocessing capability will be offered by Google Docs. I am conviced that the iPhone will also run Widgets, because yesterday's Safari update also includes updates for Widgets.
I have been a loyal Safari user ever since the application came out. I have enjoyed it's speed and the many cool features that have since become commonplace in most browsers.
However, recently I finally gave up and moved to Camino. I got tired of the frequent Safari crashes, the many websites where you have to use Camino anyway because Safari doesn't work with them, and --in this case the most important point-- the nagging feeling that Apple was not doing a thing to improve Safari.
Now we know why. They have pulled their forces to make a version of Safari for Windows. Dumb move, when work is so desperately needed on the Mac version, and everybody knows that Windows users hate programs with a Mac interface.
As a Mac user, I am disappointed with Apple. I expect them to do work for me and not for the Windows crowd. And I'll stick with Camino.
Sounds like this is another attack in Microsoft's current anti-Linux campaign. They're getting desparate.
Microsoft has huge problems, and they know it. They have perhaps 85% of all PC users using their operating system, but they also have 100% of the non-sophisticated users, who don't care/know about the OS and are just happy to continue using whatever was on it when they took it over from their son/daughter/neighbor. Who will never upgrade, and who will keep the computer until it clogs up in dust and goes up in flames.
The techies use Linux or Mac OSX, and this is where innovation is taking place these days.
That's exactly right. One parsec is the distance at which the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun (1 AU) appears to be 1 sec (=1/360 of a degree).
If you "read" between the lines, this is not really Steve arguing that an "application can bring down the network"; he is merely echoing what is stated in their contract with Cingular. My guess is that this is one of Cingulars conditions for entering into the partnership. Does anyone seriously believe that Apple would not open the device for the 1000's of Widgets created for OSX if they could? That will come, once their tie-in with Cingular is over.
The interesting thing is: what are Apple's conditions to the partnership? My guess is that Apple have some wishes for the cellular network providers to make the dream of a portable Internet device come true. For example, a seamless transition from GSM to WIFI when that is possible. Steve was talking about music and movies on the iPhone. The vision is that you can download it anytime, anywhere, not just when you are connected to your PC at home. You just don't do that kind of stuff over a GSM connection, which is pathetically slow for Internet applications.
I've read lots of negative comments to the iPhone. The iPod was $400 when it first appeared, the price is now less than half for a much more capable device. The iPhone will come down too. I am sure that Steve and Apple have a vision that could shake mobile phone providers out of their vegetative state, and they might just pull it off.
fedora and debian need to come up with a unified package database format (xml) that supports the superset of popular package formats.
It already exists... it's called repomd. AFAIK, Debian is not interested.
But to comment on the thread: the main problem for RPM based distros is the lack of a standardized naming scheme for packages. Debian has very strict standards for packages, and the debian repositories have > 12000 packages that have been tested and where the dependencies can be resolved within.
There is no such thing for RPMs. RedHat's distribution only contains around 2500 packages, therefore, to find 3rd party packages one has to go to a 3rd party repository such as RPMforge. Here, you can find another 2500 packages, but if you have exotic requirements, you may find yourself dependent on a handful of repos, where the cooperation between them is limited. This has in fact in the past led to the so-called "epoch-wars" where repositories compete in overriding each other's packages.
On the other hand, for the software packager, the RPM format is vastly superior to.deb. Just look at the multitude of poorly documented add-on tools you need to author a.deb package. Yuckkk. RPMs are very simple to create, all instructions to compile and build are in a single ASCII file, called the.spec file. With the pristine source (+ possibly patches) sitting in a directory, you can create both source and binary packages. In.deb lingo, a "source package" is actually 3 different files. Took me a while to figure that out... IMHO,.deb sux.
You are absolutely right. I weep for the casualties of 9/11, but the Twin Towers attack was hardly a serious threat to the US or the Western World. How many people die in trafic accidents a year in the US? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? People like Gingrich and his like are the real threats to our freedom and democracy.
I think M$ is referring to the Mono project, not Linux as such.
Miguel de Iguaza is employed at Novell, so it makes sense that they could be worried and willing to cut a deal with M$
In a couple of billion years, the sun will have become a red giant, and the orbit of the earth will be below it's surface. So whether the moon is a planet or not will be a more-or-less irrelevant question...
I didn't miss your point, I ignored it, because it's invalid. If you check the facts, you'll discover that the average population density in Europe is 29.7 per km. That is less than Texas and 27 other states, and in fact exactly the same as that of US as a whole (29.7 pr. km). A country like Sweden, where all urban powerlines are underground has a population density of 21.6, more or less the same as the state of Iowa (20.2). Nobody is arguing that powerlines should be underground throughout the state of Wyoming, but the whole east coast of the US has a population density comparable -- or exceeding -- that of Europe.
What all this means is that the average population density is irrelevant as an argument in this discussion. The question is, will the consumers of electricity in the urban areas of the US would benefit from a more stable electricity supply. And that's a nobrainer. But it costs money, of course.
Why does this discussion suddenly demand an anti-european outburst? Is it wrong to point out Europe's good experience with underground powerlines?
You yanks can have as lousy an infrastructure as you please. The rest of the world doesn't care how poorly you arrange your society. In fact, the US neglect of it's infrastructure gives the rest of us a competitive advantage (and even more so in the future).
However, the original post talked about power outages from thunderstorms, which -- excuse me -- is a HUGE problem in the US. I have lived in your country for several years, and been on numerous visits, and my experience is that power outages happen frequently in the US, whereas in Europe, it is a rare event. I remember one ice-storm in New Haven that brought down all the city's powerlines and it took weeks to repair. What you have to ask (and the original poster does) is whether the electricity companies across the country are scooping the profits from consumers without making investments that will ensure/improve the supply for the future. The electricity company does not pay the economic losses of thousands of other companies due to power outages.
So why not leave your flag-waving patriotism behind for a few moments and relate to the actual problems?
You must be smoking crack my friend. For at least 8 years minimum now you can do even "dpkg -S foo" and it will return you foofile with full path and everything. You do not even have to provide a complete filename.
Fortunately I haven't been smoking anything, so I could still manage to go to my Ubuntu machine and try it out "dpkg -S". These are the results of a comparison where I try to find out what package/bin/ls belongs to. First my CentOS machine:
$ cd/bin $ rpm -qf ls coreutils-5.2.1-31.2
Well, it worked... and fast! Now here comes my Ubuntu machine:
$ cd/bin $ dpkg -S ls [7529 lines of files with "ls" in them]
Oooops, not quite what I wanted. Try again:
$ cd/bin $ dpkg -S./ls dpkg: *./ls* not found.
Errrr, no... perhaps I _have_ been smoking, without even realizing it?? Try again:
$ cd/bin $ dpkg -S/bin/ls coreutils:/bin/ls
... ah! It works! Sitting in/bin I have to specify the full path to/bin/ls....Probably because the argument to dpkg -S is a pattern and not a filename. See? I was right.
Now with respect to package building (i.e. not re-compiling an existing package) we can have a whole other discussion, I have experience in creating packages under both dpkg and rpm, and rpm package building is definitely easier. End of story.
building packages Lets see, to build a package we just run apt-get build-dep foopkg; apt-get install build-essential fakeroot; apt-get source foopkg; cd foopkg-*; fakeroot debian/rules binary;. Hrm. That wasn't so hard...
Hard? No, just tedious. This is easier: rpmbuild -ba foo.spec
checking what package a file belongs to Is the package installed? Ok, dpkg -S foofile;
Yeah, but you need to speficy the full path of foofile. This is easier: rpm -qf./foofile
Not installed? apt-get install apt-file; apt-file update; apt-file search foofile; Not running Debian? Visit packages.debian.org and search for a file.
Hmmm: not installed? apt-cache search foofile; apt-get install foofile.:-)
verifying installed software cd/; md5sum -c/var/lib/dpkg/foopkg.md5sums|grep -v OK. Too hard? Install debsums and use it intsead.
Again, this is easier: rpm -V foofile (or rpm -Va to verify all packages, md5sums, sizes, modes, the works)
Now, can we get over this Debian snobism "dpkg is soooooo much better than rpm....". It does nothing but shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
I remember when tech websites were clamoring over the latest Fedora release as much as they're clamoring over Ubuntu now. Red Hat almost got it right, except for one thing.
Fix your package manager!
I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.
I have worked with both dpkg and rpm, and there is no question: rpm is vastly superior to dpkg, when it comes to building packages, checking what package a file belongs to, or verifying the installed software (can't do it with dpkg).
Apt-get has been available for RPM for years, it works perfectly, it contacts the repo and installs whatever you need. And, there are other similar systems like yum, smart, and rhupdate. All are actively developed. If you can't get YUM to work it says more about your ability fo manage a system than it does of YUM and RPM. All you need to do is to edit one configuration file. And "tagged on"??!?? YUM is no more "tagged on" that apt-get. It's Unix, everything is "tagged on"!
The big advantage of Debian (and Ubuntu) is that they have a centralized repo of thousands of packages (I think ~12000), and a set of strict guidelines for packagers to follow. Redhat does not distribute many packages (2000-3000), so you have to rely on third party repositories to go outside Redhat's vanilla selection. For example RPMforge.
Wrt, Fedora, it is meant to be a playground for geeks who want to play around with the newest bleeding-edge versions of all the major packages. It is not for amateurs. It's for people who enjoy getting into the latest stuff and solving the problems that are there. So it's kind of silly to critizise them for not being completely without wrinkles! Having said that, it runs surprisingly well out of the box. If you want something really stable and well tested, you should go for CentOS or any of the other RHEL rebuilds.
This card could definitely have an application in scientific software, for example molecular dynamics simulations. 500 million sphere collisions per second! Wow!
Yeah. PLUS, Microsoft is playing the catch-up game on several other fronts. They are attempting to compete with Sony/Nintendo on the console market. With Apple on the iPod/MP3 market (and soon portable video). With Linux/Mac OSX on the server market. They are being challenged on the lucrative Office market by SUN (OpenOffice/StarOffice), on the desktop market by Linux/Mac OSX. Their foothold on the mobile phone/handheld market is temporary, since Linux/Symbion is a more attractive solution to many mobile-phone makers. And so on.
Microsoft is fighting a multi-front war, and with their world-domination business model they have no allies. They are not innovating, only trying to catch-up with the world, and their internal problems with their 30-year old corporate structure is becoming evident.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Apple go through the trouble of maintaining Safari on the Windows platform just to participate in a browser war?
I bet the reason for the introduction of Safari on Windows is that it will be used to control and communicate with the iPhone. The iPhone will have some kind of web-server that can be used to configure it, download Widgets etc. Otherwise Apple's move doesn't make sense.
BTW, the recent Safari 3.0 update on the Mac also updated the Dashboard.
Vaclav Klaus is annoyed that science does not support his ultra-right political ideology. The senseless and unreflected abuse of natural resources does have a price and he doesn't like to be told. That's the inconvenient truth....
It might not be significant, but during the last few days Safari has silently begun to work with Google Docs. At least the document editor works without problems. The spreadsheet still warns that Safari is not yet supported, but then asks if you want to continue. Before you were met with a "we're working on it" message, but you could not continue.
These facts all hint that Safari indeed will be a central app on the iPhone, and that wordprocessing capability will be offered by Google Docs. I am conviced that the iPhone will also run Widgets, because yesterday's Safari update also includes updates for Widgets.
I have been a loyal Safari user ever since the application came out. I have enjoyed it's speed and the many cool features that have since become commonplace in most browsers.
However, recently I finally gave up and moved to Camino. I got tired of the frequent Safari crashes, the many websites where you have to use Camino anyway because Safari doesn't work with them, and --in this case the most important point-- the nagging feeling that Apple was not doing a thing to improve Safari.
Now we know why. They have pulled their forces to make a version of Safari for Windows. Dumb move, when work is so desperately needed on the Mac version, and everybody knows that Windows users hate programs with a Mac interface.
As a Mac user, I am disappointed with Apple. I expect them to do work for me and not for the Windows crowd. And I'll stick with Camino.
Sounds like this is another attack in Microsoft's current anti-Linux campaign. They're getting desparate.
Microsoft has huge problems, and they know it. They have perhaps 85% of all PC users using their operating system, but they also have 100% of the non-sophisticated users, who don't care/know about the OS and are just happy to continue using whatever was on it when they took it over from their son/daughter/neighbor. Who will never upgrade, and who will keep the computer until it clogs up in dust and goes up in flames.
The techies use Linux or Mac OSX, and this is where innovation is taking place these days.
That's exactly right. One parsec is the distance at which the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun (1 AU) appears to be 1 sec (=1/360 of a degree).
If you "read" between the lines, this is not really Steve arguing that an "application can bring down the network"; he is merely echoing what is stated in their contract with Cingular. My guess is that this is one of Cingulars conditions for entering into the partnership. Does anyone seriously believe that Apple would not open the device for the 1000's of Widgets created for OSX if they could? That will come, once their tie-in with Cingular is over.
The interesting thing is: what are Apple's conditions to the partnership? My guess is that Apple have some wishes for the cellular network providers to make the dream of a portable Internet device come true. For example, a seamless transition from GSM to WIFI when that is possible. Steve was talking about music and movies on the iPhone. The vision is that you can download it anytime, anywhere, not just when you are connected to your PC at home. You just don't do that kind of stuff over a GSM connection, which is pathetically slow for Internet applications.
I've read lots of negative comments to the iPhone. The iPod was $400 when it first appeared, the price is now less than half for a much more capable device. The iPhone will come down too. I am sure that Steve and Apple have a vision that could shake mobile phone providers out of their vegetative state, and they might just pull it off.
100 coders, 9900 people scanning books and documents. Can't get enough of those...
fedora and debian need to come up with a unified package database format (xml) that supports the superset of popular package formats.
It already exists... it's called repomd. AFAIK, Debian is not interested.
But to comment on the thread: the main problem for RPM based distros is the lack of a standardized naming scheme for packages. Debian has very strict standards for packages, and the debian repositories have > 12000 packages that have been tested and where the dependencies can be resolved within.
There is no such thing for RPMs. RedHat's distribution only contains around 2500 packages, therefore, to find 3rd party packages one has to go to a 3rd party repository such as RPMforge. Here, you can find another 2500 packages, but if you have exotic requirements, you may find yourself dependent on a handful of repos, where the cooperation between them is limited. This has in fact in the past led to the so-called "epoch-wars" where repositories compete in overriding each other's packages.
On the other hand, for the software packager, the RPM format is vastly superior to .deb. Just look at the multitude of poorly documented add-on tools you need to author a .deb package. Yuckkk. RPMs are very simple to create, all instructions to compile and build are in a single ASCII file, called the .spec file. With the pristine source (+ possibly patches) sitting in a directory, you can create both source and binary packages. In .deb lingo, a "source package" is actually 3 different files. Took me a while to figure that out... IMHO, .deb sux.
You are absolutely right. I weep for the casualties of 9/11, but the Twin Towers attack was hardly a serious threat to the US or the Western World. How many people die in trafic accidents a year in the US? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? People like Gingrich and his like are the real threats to our freedom and democracy.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I think M$ is referring to the Mono project, not Linux as such. Miguel de Iguaza is employed at Novell, so it makes sense that they could be worried and willing to cut a deal with M$
So there's hope for G.W. after all....
In a couple of billion years, the sun will have become a red giant, and the orbit of the earth will be below it's surface. So whether the moon is a planet or not will be a more-or-less irrelevant question...
What orifice did you pull your numbers out of?
My, my, you really don't like when people disagree with you, do you? Orifice? I get just about the same stuff out of my orifice as you do from yours.
But to answer your question, THIS LINK gives the value of 28.7 people per square km for Europe.
Maybe you missed the point I made.
I didn't miss your point, I ignored it, because it's invalid. If you check the facts, you'll discover that the average population density in Europe is 29.7 per km. That is less than Texas and 27 other states, and in fact exactly the same as that of US as a whole (29.7 pr. km). A country like Sweden, where all urban powerlines are underground has a population density of 21.6, more or less the same as the state of Iowa (20.2). Nobody is arguing that powerlines should be underground throughout the state of Wyoming, but the whole east coast of the US has a population density comparable -- or exceeding -- that of Europe.
What all this means is that the average population density is irrelevant as an argument in this discussion. The question is, will the consumers of electricity in the urban areas of the US would benefit from a more stable electricity supply. And that's a nobrainer. But it costs money, of course.
Why does this discussion suddenly demand an anti-european outburst? Is it wrong to point out Europe's good experience with underground powerlines?
You yanks can have as lousy an infrastructure as you please. The rest of the world doesn't care how poorly you arrange your society. In fact, the US neglect of it's infrastructure gives the rest of us a competitive advantage (and even more so in the future).
However, the original post talked about power outages from thunderstorms, which -- excuse me -- is a HUGE problem in the US. I have lived in your country for several years, and been on numerous visits, and my experience is that power outages happen frequently in the US, whereas in Europe, it is a rare event. I remember one ice-storm in New Haven that brought down all the city's powerlines and it took weeks to repair. What you have to ask (and the original poster does) is whether the electricity companies across the country are scooping the profits from consumers without making investments that will ensure/improve the supply for the future. The electricity company does not pay the economic losses of thousands of other companies due to power outages.
So why not leave your flag-waving patriotism behind for a few moments and relate to the actual problems?
You must be smoking crack my friend. For at least 8 years minimum now you can do even "dpkg -S foo" and it will return you foofile with full path and everything. You do not even have to provide a complete filename.
Fortunately I haven't been smoking anything, so I could still manage to go to my Ubuntu machine and try it out "dpkg -S". These are the results of a comparison where I try to find out what package /bin/ls belongs to. First my CentOS machine:
Well, it worked... and fast! Now here comes my Ubuntu machine:
Oooops, not quite what I wanted. Try again:
Errrr, no... perhaps I _have_ been smoking, without even realizing it?? Try again:
... ah! It works! Sitting in /bin I have to specify the full path to /bin/ls....Probably because the argument to dpkg -S is a pattern and not a filename. See? I was right.
Now with respect to package building (i.e. not re-compiling an existing package) we can have a whole other discussion, I have experience in creating packages under both dpkg and rpm, and rpm package building is definitely easier. End of story.
building packages Lets see, to build a package we just run apt-get build-dep foopkg; apt-get install build-essential fakeroot; apt-get source foopkg; cd foopkg-*; fakeroot debian/rules binary;. Hrm. That wasn't so hard...
Hard? No, just tedious. This is easier: rpmbuild -ba foo.spec
checking what package a file belongs to Is the package installed? Ok, dpkg -S foofile;
Yeah, but you need to speficy the full path of foofile. This is easier: rpm -qf ./foofile
Not installed? apt-get install apt-file; apt-file update; apt-file search foofile; Not running Debian? Visit packages.debian.org and search for a file.
Hmmm: not installed? apt-cache search foofile; apt-get install foofile. :-)
verifying installed software cd /; md5sum -c /var/lib/dpkg/foopkg.md5sums|grep -v OK. Too hard? Install debsums and use it intsead.
Again, this is easier: rpm -V foofile (or rpm -Va to verify all packages, md5sums, sizes, modes, the works)
Now, can we get over this Debian snobism "dpkg is soooooo much better than rpm....". It does nothing but shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
I remember when tech websites were clamoring over the latest Fedora release as much as they're clamoring over Ubuntu now. Red Hat almost got it right, except for one thing.
Fix your package manager!
I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.
I have worked with both dpkg and rpm, and there is no question: rpm is vastly superior to dpkg, when it comes to building packages, checking what package a file belongs to, or verifying the installed software (can't do it with dpkg).
Apt-get has been available for RPM for years, it works perfectly, it contacts the repo and installs whatever you need. And, there are other similar systems like yum, smart, and rhupdate. All are actively developed. If you can't get YUM to work it says more about your ability fo manage a system than it does of YUM and RPM. All you need to do is to edit one configuration file. And "tagged on"??!?? YUM is no more "tagged on" that apt-get. It's Unix, everything is "tagged on"!
The big advantage of Debian (and Ubuntu) is that they have a centralized repo of thousands of packages (I think ~12000), and a set of strict guidelines for packagers to follow. Redhat does not distribute many packages (2000-3000), so you have to rely on third party repositories to go outside Redhat's vanilla selection. For example RPMforge.
Wrt, Fedora, it is meant to be a playground for geeks who want to play around with the newest bleeding-edge versions of all the major packages. It is not for amateurs. It's for people who enjoy getting into the latest stuff and solving the problems that are there. So it's kind of silly to critizise them for not being completely without wrinkles! Having said that, it runs surprisingly well out of the box. If you want something really stable and well tested, you should go for CentOS or any of the other RHEL rebuilds.
This card could definitely have an application in scientific software, for example molecular dynamics simulations. 500 million sphere collisions per second! Wow!
Provided they make drivers...
I have an Airport station right next to my desk, within 1 m distance. It's so great, I can surf the net even without a computer.
Firefox 1.5 is out.... but come back another day and perhaps it will be home.
Yeah. PLUS, Microsoft is playing the catch-up game on several other fronts. They are attempting to compete with Sony/Nintendo on the console market. With Apple on the iPod/MP3 market (and soon portable video). With Linux/Mac OSX on the server market. They are being challenged on the lucrative Office market by SUN (OpenOffice/StarOffice), on the desktop market by Linux/Mac OSX. Their foothold on the mobile phone/handheld market is temporary, since Linux/Symbion is a more attractive solution to many mobile-phone makers. And so on.
Microsoft is fighting a multi-front war, and with their world-domination business model they have no allies. They are not innovating, only trying to catch-up with the world, and their internal problems with their 30-year old corporate structure is becoming evident.
That explains why so many people die in their beds...
As seen from the image on the website you link to, Rio-Antirio is not a suspension bridge, it is a cable stayed bridge, with 4 pylons.
Look HERE for a comprehensive list of long suspension bridges.