Maybe they will add games to it later, like they did with the iPod. Now that they finally added games to the iPod, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw games added to the iPhone some time next year. Maybe with the first big revision.
(Jobs) I loved Mac's in the 80's. High-res screens. Mice. Cool apps.
(No Jobs) I hated Mac's in the 90's. Slow. Ugly (my opinion). No cool apps. Crashed as often as PC's (I worked at a graphic design firm, macs at work, pc's at home)
(Jobs) I love Mac's in the...2000's(?). Beatiful. Fast. Tons of cool apps + lots of OSS stuff.
So, anecdotally I'd say that Jobs makes a huge difference. That being said, I think Apple would still have a good chance if the Jobs appointees stayed in power after he left.
Um, hello? Whoever submitted this basically took the original email that Flameeyes sent, but ignored the next one that came a few minutes later:
On Sunday 07 January 2007 02:47, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > This is a very sad blog by my side, although I hope this can be cleared up > soon so that I don't have to be this sad anymore in the future. Edit: Timothy (drizzt) found us the escape route. Applying ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/READM E.Impt.License.Change we can legally drop the clause 3 of 4-clause BSD license, and be done with it. I'm writing in this moment the code to do this, but it might require a new stage to come out. Anyway, the problem is solved, and I think I'll mail FSF for them to actually put that note somewhere, as it doesn't seem to be that documented around here.
This *should* cover our asses about the problem, although I'm still looking if there are sources that are redistributed under 4-clause BSD license, and for which the license change is not effective (i.e.: they are not under UCB copyright).
You missed the point entirely. I was "frothing at the mouth" over the "there's no dispute" part. If I dispute, then there's a dispute. Get it? No dispute, but I'm disputing... oh forget it. It was +5 funny to me, but it's obviously -5 not funny to everyone else.
So your company writes the majority of "custom business apps" in the world?
Nope. I'm just disputing his claim that there's "no dispute that most custom business apps are written to Windows." Since I provided one data-point to dispute his claim, I've shown that there is a dispute. Really, though, aside from my incomprehensible sense of humor, the attitude that 'all business blah blah blah is always windows' just bugs me, because I've spent years and years doing non-windows business programming.
There is no dispute that most custom business apps are written to Windows...
I'll dispute it. My company's been writing custom business apps on only Linux/BSD/OS X for 6 years now. Never written a single custom business app for Windows. I don't make any claims about the rest of the world, but in my sphere of influence ALL custom apps are NOT "written to Windows."
Your computer will first be initialized by the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) and perform a Power On Self Test (POST) to initialize your hardware and to do some basic checks.
Is there a way to sell on eBay and not use PayPal??? That's the only reason that I use PayPal, but after reading a dozen stories of PayPal confiscating seller's money without good reason and never giving it back, I'd really like to stop using it.
But then how do I accept payments for eBay auctions? I only sell about $100 worth of stuff per year, so an actual credit card merchant account is way too expensive.
> Apparently, those who drink alcohol and socialize make more money on average.
Uh, I think you meant:
"Apparently, those who make more money on average tend to drink alcohol and socialize."
Using the original false logic, we could also say:
Apparently, those who host huge parties at their mansions make more money on average. So y'all better go buy your dang mansions and throw a party if you want to make more money!
Mod parent down. EA may not port it's games to mac by itself, but Aspyr sure does. You'll notice Will Wright's previous big project at EA, The Sims 2, on the front page. It's even a universal binary, for those with intel processors.
A search client in which stored searches are not important to the company's business is not the same as, say, a customer relationship management system where the data is important.
I agree that searches and CRM systems are not the same. That was pretty obvious. Your sweeping generalization that "stored searches" are not important while "[CRM] data is important" is unsupportable. I've used a CRM before which I wouldn't have cared if all the data suddenly disappeared, or if all the data were printed on the front page of the newspaper. If I were in China, you can bet that I wouldn't want somebody posing as me to go to Yahoo and type in "I hate China destroy China terrorist bomb hate kiddie porn anthrax" -- as someone who did such a thing may be in danger of being thrown into prison.
You argument relies on the idea that all web apps used within a company will have the same level of importance attached, which is obviously not true.
No, my argument relies on the fact that not every single web app in the world requires you to divulge all of your most private data in order to use it. The GP stated that his workplace "refuse[d] to use any externally hosted systems" because they wanted to "keep their data on their servers," which, to me, implied "I don't use any web apps because I have to give them my private data." To show the absurdity of his position that I inferred, I supplied a reasonable counter-example of not needing to divulge 'private data' to use a web app (Google search). Of course, you could type in all your private data into Google's search box, but that's your own choice.
The parent may make some sweeping generalizations, but you are even further off target.
While you're on the lookout for sweeping generalizations, you may want to examine your own post.
How about they wanted to keep their data on their servers and not your servers? This is why we refuse to use any externally hosted systems where I work.
That's quite a broad statement. Do you really refuse to use any externally hosted systems to protect all of your data? That rules out using Google for searches. They save your search criteria, you know.
NEWS FLASH: Using an online service != Divulging all your darkest secrets
...and if you're really that paranoid, then "they" have already discovered all your deepest, darkest secrets, your tin-foil hat isn't working, and we are all watching you. Right. Now.
If you didn't think ahead of design your system to work on anything else than your specific setup then I don't want to use your software.
In other news, the fact that you can't buy a shrink-wrapped, boxed set of "Google" to install on your laptop means that Google is useless, and you don't want to use it. You go, girl! (no disrespect to females intended)
Customising is a different issue, we don't expect the full source code however we do expect some kind of framework that we can extend.
Aha! So even if Google's search engine were available to install on your personal machine (I bet that'd have some hefty system requirements), you still wouldn't be satisfied unless it were extendable. I think that's more a statement about you than anything else.
It is 2006 not 1996, if your web application can't be extended by third parties it won't survieve the next 10 years IMHO.
And you top it all off with a scathing prediction of the long-term failure of all non-extendable shrink-wrapped web apps (which you apparently don't use at work).
So in a nutshell, you don't use online services because they are not standalone applications.
We developed a hosted service over the last 6 years, and a couple of times some big clients asked us if we could "install it" internally, for various reasons.
We told them "No." But we said it in a way that they understood. It sounded something like...
"We custom-built this system over the last 6 years around a centrally-hosted architecture. If you'd like to give us a $500,000.00 down-payment we'll get started on porting this to a stand-alone solution right away, but please realize that you will need to bear all costs of development, we won't guarantee when it will be finished, and once it's done, you'll have to bear all costs of maintenance and upgrades to software and hardware, and you'll probably need to have at least one full-time employee to oversee it the whole time. Oh, and we'll need to work out all sorts of legal paperwork before we'll be able to deliver anything."
"...or you could just continue to use our existing system, and we'll address whatever problems you think would be solved by 'moving it in-house'."
They chose the latter option. The funny thing was, we could never dig out any real reasons why they wanted to move the thing in-house in the first place.
I'll put my neck out and predict that we get either the "flying car" equivalent or teleportation before we'll see widespread adoption of completely autonomous free-ranging cars.
I mean, who wants to drive at all when you can just beam home from the office?
...yet if Internet Explorer 7 recaptures a sizable chunk of that market share...
Heh. Hee hee. HAR!
Oh sorry, I just love the fact that there's actually a nugget of truth to the implication that IE has lost tons of ground. Even given that IE still has the lion's share of the market, it has less than 5% of the market that affects my daily life now. I've converted 50+ employees to Firefox or Safari, as well as my closest friends and relatives. Bwahahahaha!
> An OS with less holes is better than an OS with more holes. Let us wait patiently...
I couldn't agree more. Assuming that features are removed at a linear rate from Windows, as the time between Windows releases approaches infinity the amount of holes in Windows will approach (but never reach) zero.
That's why I plan to purchase and use Windows as soon as the elapsed years between 'now' and the previous time I purchased Windows reaches infinity.
I immediately removed the crappy OEM'd copy of Vista from my cheap commodity hardware and easily installed OS X 10.6.2. Seriously, OS X HouseCat is sooooo much better than Leopard. I followed the wiki and voila, almost three of the drivers worked and everything. Windows Vista is, like, sooo 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, he wasn't at Apple when email became commonplace, so since "sjobs" had already been taken, he chose:
steve.the.conqueror@apple.com
Maybe they will add games to it later, like they did with the iPod. Now that they finally added games to the iPod, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw games added to the iPhone some time next year. Maybe with the first big revision.
(Jobs) I loved Mac's in the 80's. High-res screens. Mice. Cool apps.
(No Jobs) I hated Mac's in the 90's. Slow. Ugly (my opinion). No cool apps. Crashed as often as PC's (I worked at a graphic design firm, macs at work, pc's at home)
(Jobs) I love Mac's in the...2000's(?). Beatiful. Fast. Tons of cool apps + lots of OSS stuff.
So, anecdotally I'd say that Jobs makes a huge difference. That being said, I think Apple would still have a good chance if the Jobs appointees stayed in power after he left.
You missed the point entirely. I was "frothing at the mouth" over the "there's no dispute" part. If I dispute, then there's a dispute. Get it? No dispute, but I'm disputing ... oh forget it. It was +5 funny to me, but it's obviously -5 not funny to everyone else.
Nope. I'm just disputing his claim that there's "no dispute that most custom business apps are written to Windows." Since I provided one data-point to dispute his claim, I've shown that there is a dispute. Really, though, aside from my incomprehensible sense of humor, the attitude that 'all business blah blah blah is always windows' just bugs me, because I've spent years and years doing non-windows business programming.
There is no dispute that most custom business apps are written to Windows...
I'll dispute it. My company's been writing custom business apps on only Linux/BSD/OS X for 6 years now. Never written a single custom business app for Windows. I don't make any claims about the rest of the world, but in my sphere of influence ALL custom apps are NOT "written to Windows."
Flame on!
Your computer will first be initialized by the Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) and perform a Power On Self Test (POST) to initialize your hardware and to do some basic checks.
My mac doesn't have a BIOS, you insensitive clod!
Sweet! You mean they still have room to hire me?!?!?
> If you build it, they will come. If it's white - shiny metal, or has a click wheel, the people will buy it for the cool-factor alone.
Heh, and if it's black, they'll gladly pay an extra $150.
Is there a way to sell on eBay and not use PayPal??? That's the only reason that I use PayPal, but after reading a dozen stories of PayPal confiscating seller's money without good reason and never giving it back, I'd really like to stop using it. But then how do I accept payments for eBay auctions? I only sell about $100 worth of stuff per year, so an actual credit card merchant account is way too expensive.
> Web 2.0 can take two distinct directions...
Aha! I wondered just what Web 2.0 was.
Now I know, by definition, that it is a resident of 1-dimensional space.
> Apparently, those who drink alcohol and socialize make more money on average.
Uh, I think you meant:
"Apparently, those who make more money on average tend to drink alcohol and socialize."
Using the original false logic, we could also say:
Apparently, those who host huge parties at their mansions make more money on average. So y'all better go buy your dang mansions and throw a party if you want to make more money!
Mod parent down. EA may not port it's games to mac by itself, but Aspyr sure does. You'll notice Will Wright's previous big project at EA, The Sims 2, on the front page. It's even a universal binary, for those with intel processors.
As soon as Spore hits the Mac, I'll get it.
I want one of those windows servers that can accumulate well over a year's worth of uptime in a year.
/me ducks and grins
No. Believe me. You don't.
A search client in which stored searches are not important to the company's business is not the same as, say, a customer relationship management system where the data is important.
I agree that searches and CRM systems are not the same. That was pretty obvious. Your sweeping generalization that "stored searches" are not important while "[CRM] data is important" is unsupportable. I've used a CRM before which I wouldn't have cared if all the data suddenly disappeared, or if all the data were printed on the front page of the newspaper. If I were in China, you can bet that I wouldn't want somebody posing as me to go to Yahoo and type in "I hate China destroy China terrorist bomb hate kiddie porn anthrax" -- as someone who did such a thing may be in danger of being thrown into prison.
You argument relies on the idea that all web apps used within a company will have the same level of importance attached, which is obviously not true.
No, my argument relies on the fact that not every single web app in the world requires you to divulge all of your most private data in order to use it. The GP stated that his workplace "refuse[d] to use any externally hosted systems" because they wanted to "keep their data on their servers," which, to me, implied "I don't use any web apps because I have to give them my private data." To show the absurdity of his position that I inferred, I supplied a reasonable counter-example of not needing to divulge 'private data' to use a web app (Google search). Of course, you could type in all your private data into Google's search box, but that's your own choice.
The parent may make some sweeping generalizations, but you are even further off target.
While you're on the lookout for sweeping generalizations, you may want to examine your own post.
How about they wanted to keep their data on their servers and not your servers? This is why we refuse to use any externally hosted systems where I work.
...and if you're really that paranoid, then "they" have already discovered all your deepest, darkest secrets, your tin-foil hat isn't working, and we are all watching you. Right. Now.
That's quite a broad statement. Do you really refuse to use any externally hosted systems to protect all of your data? That rules out using Google for searches. They save your search criteria, you know.
NEWS FLASH: Using an online service != Divulging all your darkest secrets
If you didn't think ahead of design your system to work on anything else than your specific setup then I don't want to use your software.
In other news, the fact that you can't buy a shrink-wrapped, boxed set of "Google" to install on your laptop means that Google is useless, and you don't want to use it. You go, girl! (no disrespect to females intended)
Customising is a different issue, we don't expect the full source code however we do expect some kind of framework that we can extend.
Aha! So even if Google's search engine were available to install on your personal machine (I bet that'd have some hefty system requirements), you still wouldn't be satisfied unless it were extendable. I think that's more a statement about you than anything else.
It is 2006 not 1996, if your web application can't be extended by third parties it won't survieve the next 10 years IMHO.
And you top it all off with a scathing prediction of the long-term failure of all non-extendable shrink-wrapped web apps (which you apparently don't use at work).
So in a nutshell, you don't use online services because they are not standalone applications.
We developed a hosted service over the last 6 years, and a couple of times some big clients asked us if we could "install it" internally, for various reasons.
We told them "No." But we said it in a way that they understood. It sounded something like...
"We custom-built this system over the last 6 years around a centrally-hosted architecture. If you'd like to give us a $500,000.00 down-payment we'll get started on porting this to a stand-alone solution right away, but please realize that you will need to bear all costs of development, we won't guarantee when it will be finished, and once it's done, you'll have to bear all costs of maintenance and upgrades to software and hardware, and you'll probably need to have at least one full-time employee to oversee it the whole time. Oh, and we'll need to work out all sorts of legal paperwork before we'll be able to deliver anything."
"...or you could just continue to use our existing system, and we'll address whatever problems you think would be solved by 'moving it in-house'."
They chose the latter option. The funny thing was, we could never dig out any real reasons why they wanted to move the thing in-house in the first place.
...hasn't beta testing...er, I mean playing WoW for the last couple of years been worth it?
I mean, for those of you who actually have the time and money to play it...
I'll put my neck out and predict that we get either the "flying car" equivalent or teleportation before we'll see widespread adoption of completely autonomous free-ranging cars.
I mean, who wants to drive at all when you can just beam home from the office?
I think by definition since IE7 comes from Microsoft IE7 must have an impact.
I think the submitter was implying a positive impact...
...yet if Internet Explorer 7 recaptures a sizable chunk of that market share...
Heh. Hee hee. HAR!
Oh sorry, I just love the fact that there's actually a nugget of truth to the implication that IE has lost tons of ground. Even given that IE still has the lion's share of the market, it has less than 5% of the market that affects my daily life now. I've converted 50+ employees to Firefox or Safari, as well as my closest friends and relatives. Bwahahahaha!
> An OS with less holes is better than an OS with more holes. Let us wait patiently...
I couldn't agree more. Assuming that features are removed at a linear rate from Windows, as the time between Windows releases approaches infinity the amount of holes in Windows will approach (but never reach) zero.
That's why I plan to purchase and use Windows as soon as the elapsed years between 'now' and the previous time I purchased Windows reaches infinity.
I immediately removed the crappy OEM'd copy of Vista from my cheap commodity hardware and easily installed OS X 10.6.2. Seriously, OS X HouseCat is sooooo much better than Leopard. I followed the wiki and voila, almost three of the drivers worked and everything. Windows Vista is, like, sooo 2008.
Ah, closure. Thanks.
I let all the images load from all four pages, or so I thought, but that one wasn't there.