I don't need a dragon, my computer is already protected by a Tiger.
It was protected by a Jaguar, but they're a bit passe these days.
Re:the worst are always good for you in some ways.
on
Coffee A Health Drink?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure there are non-smoking, fit, teetotalling, health-food fanatics who get cancer or diabetes, not to mention babies and animals who've never come anywhere near cigarettes, alcohol or fast-food in their lives, who still die of cancer.
It's possible to move yourself into a different group statistically as far as risk goes, but doing all of the above is by no means a guarantee that you won't develop cancer or type 2 diabetes, and certainly isn't going to make a shred of difference to type 1 diabetes.
As the parent of a child who died of a brain tumor I find it a little offensive that you seem to be suggesting my 17 month old son was a "fat slob".
Re:the worst are always good for you in some ways.
on
Coffee A Health Drink?
·
· Score: 1
"People are slowly becoming more aware of their health and healthy eating because it is a fact that people in rich countries are dying like flies from preventable illness like diabetes and cancer."
I'd be curious to hear exactly how you propose to prevent diabetes and cancer...
Oh come on, there has never been a mac that shipped with an RS 232 or Centronics printer port, you'd have been screwed without some kind of special adaptor no matter which Mac laptop you had.
The reason Apple dropped their old serial interfaces was because hardware vendors had been begging them to switch to a standard interface for years.
It's nice that PC laptops still carry their old baggage around with them, because you might actually find a use for them, but the old Apple interfaces were already a burden on both Apple and their hardware vendors before they dropped them, unlike RS232 and Centronics ports.
"We all have to remember that the StrongARM was developed by Apple"
The StrongARM processor range (now Intel's Xscale) was DEC's name for their licensed version of the ARM processor co-developed with ARM Inc.
StrongARM's predecessor ARM was originally developed in the UK for Acorn computers to power their Archimedes series of computers. ARM actually stands for Acorn RISC Machine.
Apple actually developed the Newton around the AT&T Hobbit processor not an ARM variant of any sort, further discrediting any notion that the StrongARM was developed by Apple.
If Apple wanted to build an ARM variant they would need only contact ARM Inc. and negotiate a licensing agreement, but it's more likely they'd just go to an existing licensee like Intel rather than going it alone.
Granted, they probably assume I'm only going to share it with members of my household, but if we're paying for the bandwidth, how can they dictate whether we share it with friends, neighbors, pets or strangers?
You no doubt agreed to some kind of terms of service when you signed up for your internet service, somewhere in most such agreements is some kind of provision that prevents you from reselling the internet connection or undercutting them by providing the same service for free to anyone who happens to be nearby.
At any rate, ISPs are usually free to choose not to do business with anyone without providing a reason (in addition to any terms and conditions they may have set out in their terms of service).
There's another problem here as well: Even if we assume that by leaving the Wi-Fi open your neighbor has given you permission to use their network, the cable company definitely hasn't given you permission to use their network.
If I connect to a wireless network, I am not connecting to the upstream bandwidth directly. I am connecting to a private network that has chosen to multiplex a number of computers onto a single connection. The decision to re-broadcast the signal from the ISP is entirely up to the owner of that connection.
It's worth noting that most ISPs specifically prohibit subletting, putting the onus on the owner of the wireless equipment and internet connection to ensure that no other people will be able to use the connection whether for a fee or not.
The "victim" of this so-called "crime" was knowingly allowing others to freely use his internet connection, probably in direct contravention of the contract with his ISP. And deliberately leaving a point of entry open through which anyone nearby could freely access the internet under a cloak of anonymity.
Yet he is considered blameless in this case, despite redistributing his connection, and essentially operating an ISP from his house that allows access to anyone keeps no record of it's customers. This guy was deliberately negligent and irresponsible in the first place and then went crying to police and media about it. What a disgrace.
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Open APs have no password, which could be considered roughly equivalent to the arorementioned girl wearing no clothes to prevent someone from gaining access to her.
Open APs broadcast their SSID, which is a lot like the theoretical girl walking around periodically yelling "anybody! fuck me! I'm easy!"
To top it all off, most open APs also assign IPs to allow computers connecting to it to communicate using TCP. Analogous to the aforementioned girl saying "this is the way to my pussy" and pointing.
And finally the open AP offered apparently unfettered access to the internet and local machines, which is not much different to saying "forget the rubber".
So, to sum up... if a girl was walking around naked saying "Anybody! Beat me and fuck me! I like it!... here's my pussy... forget the rubber pal!" would you still consider it rape if you were a juror?
"There is nothing wrong with removing app bundles. The problems are with users removing applications. Your (and Apple's) fault is to think that app bundles and applications can be equated."
It's not a fault to think that App bundles and applications can be equated. The entire reason for the existence of bundles is to simplify application management where the bundle concept is applicable.
"If you look at applications on Linux and Windows systems, you see that many of them cannot be represented as app bundles; for example, many web applications modify global Apache configuration files, add stuff to the registry or etc. directory, create databases, and add new subdirectories to the web directory. They may also generate large log files and cache files. Linux and Windows uninstallers can undo those changes cleanly, Apple's app bundles can't. With drag-and-drop installs, like on Apple, if you just undo the installation by dragging the install into the trash, all the other stuff the application changed will still hang around."
This is significantly different to the reasons you gave in the original post I replied to. You're now addressing some valid concerns. In the (fairly) rare case that an Application cannot be installed by drag and drop, there are various installer tools available for OS X developers from Apple and third parties. No different to Windows, apart from the lack of a centralised uninstaller registry.
The Add/Remove software panel in Windows is something which has in my experience proven to be extremely fragile and prone to 'phantom' applications that cannot be uninstalled. Microsoft don't offer an easy way to maintain the list of supposedly installed applications with Windows, instead requiring extensive registry knowledge or a separate download from the Microsoft site.
"You haven't backed up anything, you simply keep repeating how you think things are intended to work. But it is pure speculation on your part that those mechanisms actually accomplish what they are intended to accomplish for the average computer user. Demonstrating that requires usability tests, and none of those have been published for the Macintosh."
As a matter of fact, it's you who was speculating about usability, I was commenting about whether the system works for me. I don't care if Joe Average can use Mac OS X.
On that subject however, there are more users of OS X than all of the other Unix-like systems put together, so if there is a significant problem with App bundles messing people's systems up, where are the reams of complaints?
"All the usability assertions and the "it just works" claims about Macintosh are hot air from the Apple marketing department and people like you."
What possible gain would there be for me to claim that something that is broken actually works?
Do you suffer from paranoid delusions or something?
"The data we [is that the royal we, or are you some kind of secret organisation of Mac FUD spreaders?] have is that Macintosh market share has declined greatly, from about 16% at its top to about 2-3% today, and that Macintosh has been losing market share from 2000-2004 in most market segments except for education (source: Wall Street Journal). There must be a reason for those declines. Both of us can only speculate what the reason is. My explanation (based on my experience with the platform) is that the platform is technically deficient and does not satisfy the needs of most computer users. What's your explanation?"
You're talking about two different time periods, and trying to give the impression that the Mac dropped from 16% to 2-3% in the period from 2000-2004.
By the time OS X was released in 2000, Apple's market share had already dropped to near the level it's at today, in the years prior to the introduction of OS X, the Mac 'faithful' had already endured 5 changes of CEO, a major architectural change that didn't go smoothly, various supply chain problems, outrageou
But you did: you were claiming that Mac software installation is a simple, functional solution. Those are usability claims, whether you realize it or not.
Since you've now started talking about unsubstantiated claims, please supply some data that backs this statement up.
That was not necessary because I understand how software installation works on the Mac (as we speak, I'm trying to get a Mac upgraded to Tiger and the f*cking Tiger installer keeps crashing with obscure error messages).
Hang on a moment, are we talking about a software upgrade, or installing packages?
Remember we were talking about software installation here, not a full system upgrade, something which OS X has been infinitely better at than Windows or any Linux distribution in my experience.
At any rate I've upgraded my OS X install to the next major version four times without incident. Again, substantiate your claim. Supply data... what error message? at what point of the install?
Between myself and my housemates there are four macs here, not one has ever experienced upgrade problems or problems when removing App bundles. I have never even heard or seen anyone discussing the kinds of problems you seem to be having with Mac OS X.
Yes, and that is the problem: you have no data to support your claims that Macintosh package management is "simple" or that it "works". If anything, the history of the Macintosh platform suggests that it has some serious problems that keep it from catching on on the desktop.
Bullshit, I've given you a lot of information to back up my claims, it's you who keeps avoiding giving specific answers to questions, and it's really starting to annoy me.
You have failed to cite even one example of a bundle that can mess up an OS X system. I can supply you with the names of hundreds of applications which haven't damaged my system and which are properly packaged, but it would be a waste of space to start quoting them all here.
Dude, and I do care when Apple's unsubstantiated marketing claims get parrotted uncritically and start affecting community efforts like Linux.
Please tell me where I "parrotted" the information I posted from, it was all from my own head, gathered from my experience using OS X. I have never, and I don't know anyone else who has ever had the issues you speak of with bundles, and since you're unable to cite even a single incidence of recorded problems with bundles I'll reiterate what I said before about you being a bad liar.
The concept of bundles has been around without substantial changes since it was first introduced 18 years ago in NeXTStep. It has been in use longer than Linux has existed, and had already been in widespread use for years when the Add/Remove Software control panel was introduced in Windows 95.
That's an awfully long time for it to have existed without me ever having seen anyone discuss the kinds of problems you say people should be experiencing.
Remember, you said that removing an App bundle was playing "russian roulette" with the system, and that people had "abandoned" the mac because it was incapable of supporting complex applications. Both unsubstantiated claims that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support.
My claims are that bundles are a suitable method of packaging applications that does not leave the system with files strewn around the system in random places.
I've backed that up with fairly simplistic but detailed enough descriptions of how bundles prevent what you're claiming they cause, and all you've been able to do is mindlessly repeat the same things over and over about how they don't work without providing a scrap of evidence that your claims are true.
"How can you "refute" anything when you don't provide any data? All these claims from people like you about Macintosh usability, growth, performance, ease of development have no data to back them up."
Dude, don't care.
You've completely lost it, I never talked about usability, growth, performance or ease of development. I provided you with detailed descriptions of what I was talking about, which is package management on the Mac. I don't know what other data I can supply you with about that subject.
If you want to rant about the cult-of-mac zealots, feel free. But please, find someone who actually subscribes to that point of view. I'm not religious about operating systems, but I hate to see someone spreading misinformation about them. I'd probably have defended Windows if you made claims that it was unsuitable for the desktop as well.
"Are you suggesting that removing files is beyond the technical expertise of most users?
Yes, I am. The fact that you don't get it speaks for itself."
Where can I get some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Okay, taking this in context, you're suggesting that navigating to an item called "Control Panel" nested two levels deep in a menu which appears out of a button marked "Start" is somehow a much easier concept to grasp than browsing through your file system to a directory nested two levels deep in the filesystem and dragging a single file to the trash to remove it. Neither method is intuitive or simple, and neither would appear to be simpler than the other.
As for Linux package managers, none of them are intuitive to use either, it's not obvious to anyone on the planet what emerge world or apt-get dist-upgrade does unless they are already familiar with the package manager in question.
No, I just pointed out that OS X is no threat to Linux (see the original story) and justified my statement.
You justified your statement with FUD and lies, and after that had been thoroughly refuted, attempted to change history and claim that you actually meant something else.
"Don't you realize how stupid it is to blather on about "Startup Items" and "Frameworks" and "Bundles" and "Fink" and then claim that the Macintosh is intuitive? Why the hell would any normal user care to understand any of that systems stuff? Windows and Linux both have solutions to installing and uninstalling software that automate things and don't bother users with all that technical nonsense."
Users don't bother with "all that technical nonsense", If I want to remove a piece of software that is installed on my system, I remove a file. Are you suggesting that removing files is beyond the technical expertise of most users?
You're an ignorant buffoon, and you think you know everything about operating systems and take it as a personal insult that Mac OS X doesn't work the way you think it should.
Also, I've never claimed that there was anything intuitive about this method of removing software, only that bundles don't leave packages strewn around the system and that people aren't abandoning the Mac because it can't handle the same tasks as Windows and Linux, which is what you claimed.
While we're on the subject of intuition though, none of this stuff is intuitive, it's all jargon that we've learned to be able to use our computers effectively. I'm not trying to convert anyone to Mac or evangelise the platform, I'm simply refuting the nonsense you're spouting.
I don't care that you're incapable of comprehending how bundles work in Mac OS X, I care that there is something disputing the rubbish that you've been spouting, and that's done. Now you've resorted to repeating the same drivel but without any reasons, my work is done.
You know you're wrong about what you said in the beginning, and you've shifted your argument from "Mac OS X isn't suitable for advanced users who need to install complicated software" to "it's not intuitive". Which isn't what I was saying in the first place.
"Macintosh will get Windows and Linux-like package management (if Apple doesn't go out of business first). But, like Intel processors, multitasking, UNIX, and lots of other stuff, Mac die-hards like you will defend the inferior Macintosh design choices until Apple finally gets around to implementing it, and then you'll claim that it didn't really exist until Apple implemented it."
Multitasking? I guess you must be talking about OS 9 and previous... The Mac has had multitasking since system 7 I think, at any rate I'm a Unix die-hard who thinks Mac OS was a piece of shit before OS X, so don't accuse me of defending it.
Intel processors? Who cares? I wanted OS X, and if the PPC was holding it back, then good riddance to it.
Anyway, all your sweeping generalisations about me are unrelated to the original topic, and just garbage that you're spewing to make yourself feel better. Why not just admit that you don't understand enough about OS X to critique it's packaging concepts?
"There is nothing wrong with changing system settings and all that (indeed, it is unavoidable), as long as they get restored properly on uninstall. Windows and Linux do that, Macintosh does not."
I'm not sure I understand.
What sort of changes? to which system settings?
Are you being deliberately vague, or can you give an example?
"Package managers don't "protect" you, they provide a well-defined mechanism by which users can install and uninstall applications cleanly. Windows and Linux have such mechanisms (Linux's even handles dependencies), Macintosh does not."
You're talking about package managers having the ability to reverse changes to system files. That sounds a lot like protection to me. Again though, it's hard to tell because you're being so non-specific about the type of changes you mean. I think you're making a lot of wrong assumptions about how Mac OS X works.
"What is your suggested method of removing application bundles which are no longer in use?
You go to the package manager, get a complete list of what is and isn't installed, and make your selection of what you want installed. The rest should be automatic."
No, I go to the directory where the bundle I want to remove is, and trash it just like I would any other file. The rest is automatic.
"No, they are not called "frameworks" or "startup items" in the real world. And if hunting around for leftover shared libraries, daemons, and other stuff makes you happy, you deserve your Macintosh. Just don't try telling the rest of us that that sort of crap is what we all should be reduced to."
Mac OS X isn't Linux or Windows or any other operating system at all, you confuse your own ignorance for some sort of all seeing eye that allows you to see how all operating systems work.
StartupItems are not the same as Daemons, Daemons are an element inside the StartupItem bundle, along with most of the other resources that are usually strewn around on Unix systems.
StartupItems often use installer packages to facilitate privilege escalation through a graphical sudo. These sort of packages often don't do anything at all except place the item in the/Library/StartupItems directory and tell the system to start it.
When you remove a startupitem, you generally remove all associated files, but not the data created by them. The sort of behaviour I'd expect from any uninstaller.
It's certainly possible to make StartupItems that spew rubbish all over your hard drive, put files in the/etc/ directory and so on, but I have yet to encounter one that has caused any problems and I'm sure poor packaging is possible on any system. A StartupItem is very similar to a package on other operating systems, except that there is no installation step.
In short, a StartupItem is conceptually similar to a package that remains (literally and metaphorically) bundled, even when in use, so there should be very little if any interference with the rest of the system.
Frameworks are a similar concept except that they contain a system library. Installation and removal of Frameworks and StartupItems are as simple as placing them in the correct directories or removing them from said directories. From at least 10.2 onward StartupItems and Frameworks can be installed automatically by double clicking.
I guess it could be dumbed down a bit more, by making some kind of thing that points you at the directories or puts them in a list with an info dialog about each one, but at the moment I have precisely one StartupItem installed, so it's not exactly rocket surgery to figure out which one I want to remove.
Another emerging trend is to add Uninstall as an installation method in package managers, but usually this is just the equivalent of going to the/Library/StartupItems directory and trashing the file bundle.
So that covers the Mac side of things, but for the Unix side of things, th
"Yeah, the program is gone, but the install isn't necessarily gone. The software may have"...
"modified system settings" What operating system provides protections against this kind of thing? I guess you could claim the system restore points in Win XP/ME do, but we all know they don't work properly.
"installed shared libraries" These are called frameworks, and will be in bundles in ~/Library/Frameworks or/Library/Frameworks
"installed daemons" These are called startupitems, and will be in bundles in ~/Library/StartupItems or/Library/StartupItems
"changed file associations" Once the associated application is removed the system will automatically default to the next registered application on the system that handles that filetype.
"and done a lot of other things." What other things? No package manager can possibly protect your system against unspecified "other things". I could just state that.dpkg and.RPM packages are far worse than App bundles because I could include "rm -rf/" in the install script and be assured that it would run with root privileges. Does that count as "other things"?
"Other software may depend simply on being able to invoke the application." What's your proposed solution to this scenario? A package manager could scarcely do any better in a situation where you want to delete something that other applications are dependant upon, particularly if you just trash the program in question.
Dragging.app directories into the trash is playing Russian roulette with your system. I don't follow your line of reasoning. The install of Mac OS X that I'm using has been with me through three different PowerBooks and four different versions of Mac OS X. I've probably trashed or overwritten hundreds of bundles and have yet to experience any problems that weren't easily solved.
What is your suggested method of removing application bundles which are no longer in use?
"Yes; that's because most users that actually need more complex software configurations have long ago abandoned the platform because it doesn't support it well."
You're trolling. Your shallow analysis of bundle management and the preposterous and immature statement above shows that you have little understanding of how OS X works, and at best a tenuous grasp on how package management on any other operating system works.
Please try to stick to posting about subjects which you actually have some knowledge about in future.
No, the IBM PC took over the market within 2 years, DOS hitched along for the ride.
The reason that the IBM PC took over the market was because it was the right computer (business oriented, super number crunching, fast hi-res text display), at the right time, from the right people.
The IBM PC would still have stormed the market if it was running CP/M.
MS-DOS played an insignificant role in the early success of the PC, if anything it hindered developers and owners of businesses already running on CP/M machines from moving to the PC until they were convinced that it was going to be a roaring success.
"...the bytecode interpreter is still available and can be toggled on at compile time, for those that want to use it anyway (because they purchased a license from Apple..."
I'd love to know why the hell the ft2 library supplied with x11 on OS X still renders truetype fonts like every other version of ft2, if they own these patents and it's just a matter of changing some options at compile time. Would apple really sue their own coders for infringing a patent in their own product?
The positive things he has done for the industry you ask. Well you may say Windows sucks - but software like windows is what helped bring the non-technical person to the computer - and that brought their money - which helped increase the computer industry to what it is today.
You don't seem to have a very good grasp of reality, Microsoft Windows wasn't an attempt to make life easier for non technical people, it was to prevent all their customers from leaving them by using the same strategy they did with MS-DOS.
Remember, they started out with an OS that was essentially a crappy knock-off of CP/M, called MS-DOS. MS-DOS actually made life worse for anyone with CP/M experience by having an even shittier interface and shittier tools than CP/M.
Then a few years later, fearing that the world would move the Mac and other platforms sporting next generation interfaces, Microsoft started a FUD campaign where their salesmen and executives would dismiss GUI based computers as toys only good for grannies and simpletons, while they worked on their own poor clone of the competition.
Microsoft hold the industry back rather than improving it, by seizing on any new technology and making a crappier version of it and then pushing it onto their customers with agressive marketing, FUD, and special pricing.
As increasing the computer industry to what it is today, have you looked at the computer industry lately? It's a sick place, with Microsoft pulling almost all of the shots, not necessarily because they make good software, but because they are good at ruthlessly manipulating the market to their own ends using their holy trinity of marketing, FUD, and underpricing to maintain control.
Anyway, with that out of the way, what positive things were you saying he'd done for the computer industry?
1. The icon you're hovering over expands to help you see what you're clicking on and hit the target correctly. (Mac OS X Dock.)
I'm a Mac OS X user, and have been for the past 3 and half years, and though I have always liked the dock, I despise the icon zooming feature not because it's flashy or eats CPU/GPU, but becaue it's awful from a usability standpoint. Things that you are trying to click on should not move away from, then toward your mouse as you get closer.
The idea of the entire dock expanding and contracting, and having different sized icons is hideous. Drop/click targets should not move as you're trying to click on them. Yuck.
2. Windows can be flipped over so that notes can be placed for later reference. (Sun Looking Glass)
This could be achieved using other methods. Programs have been popping up windows to allow you to edit preferences and other data for quite some time now. There's no reason that a sheet couldn't drop down from the window title bar or pop up from pressing a button. That feature of looking glass stemmed from the developer desperately trying to find a use for a new technology rather than it being a needed feature looking for a good implimentation. Not to mention the fact that the flipping effect could easily have been simulated in a 2d environment.
3. Objects on a table-screen can be moved by dragging your finger, rotated by moving a second finger outside of the object being dragged, and copied by dragging two fingers around the object(s) to highlight an area. (See here)
And while we're on the subject of hardware that no-one has yet, why don't we just use a neuro-interface to transmit the computer's interface directly into the users brain using our 50Ghz 20 CPU superduperwoopercomputer.:D
Feel free to use Notepad. Or, you can get the free Word, Excel, or PowerPoint reader.
Uh huh. Let me guess, you live at home and are still at school right?
I have to be able to create, and modify Word documents and have a reasonably high chance that the recipient will be able to open any documents I create in Microsoft Office, complete with formatting, pagination, etc. I can't send people documents that accidentally overflow a buffer in MS Word because the author of the export filter didn't understand the format properly because he was making educated guesses at how Word stores data.
My office suite needs to be made by someone with access to Microsoft's documentation, currently that means Office for Windows or Office for Mac. I'd like my choice of computing platform not to be limited by my choice of office suite.
What gives them the right to treat my work in that way after I have already paid them?
I didnt realized your paying money for something entitled you to so many rights. I demand to have full access to the source code and structure of the save game files for Doom 3!!!
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm not asking for access to their source code, I'm asking for them to document the structure for data that is saved by their product. You're making stuff up.
Is there a MS rep over there, FORCING you to save in their file format? Last I checked, you could save in a ton of alternate file formats, including HTML. And last I checked, HTML didnt require MS Office to view.
Have you ever tried saving a document in Microsoft's HTML format and then looking at it in any browser except IE? Not to mention the fact that the HTML, like all Word export filters strips out a lot of formatting even when viewed in IE.
but that doesn't mean Microsoft has any legal obligation to open their formats and it's a bit silly for anyone to "demand" it of them.
I'm not demanding anything of them, but I don't think it's valid to say that I shouldn't complain about the fact that they go out of their way to thwart interoperability, and I shouldn't ask for better treatment from a company of which I'm a customer.
I'm trying to spark a bit of debate about openness, because it interests me to find out what viewpoints people on the other side of the fence have. So far all people have been able to say is "it's a free market d000d!" or "shut up and stop whining", no one has been able to provide a good reason why Microsoft should be able to keep the format they store my data in a secret.
If the "free market" was allowed to exist completely unchecked, Multinationals would have all it's employees working for a cup of rice a week and chained to their desks if they thought it increased their profits,
I'd be happy if Microsoft would release their documentation about their file formats, I don't want them to write new export filters, or save in a different format. As it is, no one can make a reliable import filter for Word documents for any other office suite, and I find that annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes he was saying that Bush actually is a monkey, not that he's merely equivalent.
I think the original poster was more correct.
I don't need a dragon, my computer is already protected by a Tiger.
It was protected by a Jaguar, but they're a bit passe these days.
I'm sure there are non-smoking, fit, teetotalling, health-food fanatics who get cancer or diabetes, not to mention babies and animals who've never come anywhere near cigarettes, alcohol or fast-food in their lives, who still die of cancer.
It's possible to move yourself into a different group statistically as far as risk goes, but doing all of the above is by no means a guarantee that you won't develop cancer or type 2 diabetes, and certainly isn't going to make a shred of difference to type 1 diabetes.
As the parent of a child who died of a brain tumor I find it a little offensive that you seem to be suggesting my 17 month old son was a "fat slob".
"People are slowly becoming more aware of their health and healthy eating because it is a fact that people in rich countries are dying like flies from preventable illness like diabetes and cancer."
I'd be curious to hear exactly how you propose to prevent diabetes and cancer...
Oh come on, there has never been a mac that shipped with an RS 232 or Centronics printer port, you'd have been screwed without some kind of special adaptor no matter which Mac laptop you had.
The reason Apple dropped their old serial interfaces was because hardware vendors had been begging them to switch to a standard interface for years.
It's nice that PC laptops still carry their old baggage around with them, because you might actually find a use for them, but the old Apple interfaces were already a burden on both Apple and their hardware vendors before they dropped them, unlike RS232 and Centronics ports.
OS X stands for OpenStep X
"We all have to remember that the StrongARM was developed by Apple"
The StrongARM processor range (now Intel's Xscale) was DEC's name for their licensed version of the ARM processor co-developed with ARM Inc.
StrongARM's predecessor ARM was originally developed in the UK for Acorn computers to power their Archimedes series of computers. ARM actually stands for Acorn RISC Machine.
Apple actually developed the Newton around the AT&T Hobbit processor not an ARM variant of any sort, further discrediting any notion that the StrongARM was developed by Apple.
If Apple wanted to build an ARM variant they would need only contact ARM Inc. and negotiate a licensing agreement, but it's more likely they'd just go to an existing licensee like Intel rather than going it alone.
Granted, they probably assume I'm only going to share it with members of my household, but if we're paying for the bandwidth, how can they dictate whether we share it with friends, neighbors, pets or strangers?
You no doubt agreed to some kind of terms of service when you signed up for your internet service, somewhere in most such agreements is some kind of provision that prevents you from reselling the internet connection or undercutting them by providing the same service for free to anyone who happens to be nearby.
At any rate, ISPs are usually free to choose not to do business with anyone without providing a reason (in addition to any terms and conditions they may have set out in their terms of service).
There's another problem here as well: Even if we assume that by leaving the Wi-Fi open your neighbor has given you permission to use their network, the cable company definitely hasn't given you permission to use their network.
If I connect to a wireless network, I am not connecting to the upstream bandwidth directly. I am connecting to a private network that has chosen to multiplex a number of computers onto a single connection. The decision to re-broadcast the signal from the ISP is entirely up to the owner of that connection.
It's worth noting that most ISPs specifically prohibit subletting, putting the onus on the owner of the wireless equipment and internet connection to ensure that no other people will be able to use the connection whether for a fee or not.
The "victim" of this so-called "crime" was knowingly allowing others to freely use his internet connection, probably in direct contravention of the contract with his ISP. And deliberately leaving a point of entry open through which anyone nearby could freely access the internet under a cloak of anonymity.
Yet he is considered blameless in this case, despite redistributing his connection, and essentially operating an ISP from his house that allows access to anyone keeps no record of it's customers. This guy was deliberately negligent and irresponsible in the first place and then went crying to police and media about it. What a disgrace.
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Open APs have no password, which could be considered roughly equivalent to the arorementioned girl wearing no clothes to prevent someone from gaining access to her.
Open APs broadcast their SSID, which is a lot like the theoretical girl walking around periodically yelling "anybody! fuck me! I'm easy!"
To top it all off, most open APs also assign IPs to allow computers connecting to it to communicate using TCP. Analogous to the aforementioned girl saying "this is the way to my pussy" and pointing.
And finally the open AP offered apparently unfettered access to the internet and local machines, which is not much different to saying "forget the rubber".
So, to sum up... if a girl was walking around naked saying "Anybody! Beat me and fuck me! I like it!... here's my pussy... forget the rubber pal!" would you still consider it rape if you were a juror?
"There is nothing wrong with removing app bundles. The problems are with users removing applications. Your (and Apple's) fault is to think that app bundles and applications can be equated."
It's not a fault to think that App bundles and applications can be equated. The entire reason for the existence of bundles is to simplify application management where the bundle concept is applicable.
"If you look at applications on Linux and Windows systems, you see that many of them cannot be represented as app bundles; for example, many web applications modify global Apache configuration files, add stuff to the registry or etc. directory, create databases, and add new subdirectories to the web directory. They may also generate large log files and cache files. Linux and Windows uninstallers can undo those changes cleanly, Apple's app bundles can't. With drag-and-drop installs, like on Apple, if you just undo the installation by dragging the install into the trash, all the other stuff the application changed will still hang around."
This is significantly different to the reasons you gave in the original post I replied to. You're now addressing some valid concerns. In the (fairly) rare case that an Application cannot be installed by drag and drop, there are various installer tools available for OS X developers from Apple and third parties. No different to Windows, apart from the lack of a centralised uninstaller registry.
The Add/Remove software panel in Windows is something which has in my experience proven to be extremely fragile and prone to 'phantom' applications that cannot be uninstalled. Microsoft don't offer an easy way to maintain the list of supposedly installed applications with Windows, instead requiring extensive registry knowledge or a separate download from the Microsoft site.
"You haven't backed up anything, you simply keep repeating how you think things are intended to work. But it is pure speculation on your part that those mechanisms actually accomplish what they are intended to accomplish for the average computer user. Demonstrating that requires usability tests, and none of those have been published for the Macintosh."
As a matter of fact, it's you who was speculating about usability, I was commenting about whether the system works for me. I don't care if Joe Average can use Mac OS X.
On that subject however, there are more users of OS X than all of the other Unix-like systems put together, so if there is a significant problem with App bundles messing people's systems up, where are the reams of complaints?
"All the usability assertions and the "it just works" claims about Macintosh are hot air from the Apple marketing department and people like you."
What possible gain would there be for me to claim that something that is broken actually works?
Do you suffer from paranoid delusions or something?
"The data we [is that the royal we, or are you some kind of secret organisation of Mac FUD spreaders?] have is that Macintosh market share has declined greatly, from about 16% at its top to about 2-3% today, and that Macintosh has been losing market share from 2000-2004 in most market segments except for education (source: Wall Street Journal). There must be a reason for those declines. Both of us can only speculate what the reason is. My explanation (based on my experience with the platform) is that the platform is technically deficient and does not satisfy the needs of most computer users. What's your explanation?"
You're talking about two different time periods, and trying to give the impression that the Mac dropped from 16% to 2-3% in the period from 2000-2004.
By the time OS X was released in 2000, Apple's market share had already dropped to near the level it's at today, in the years prior to the introduction of OS X, the Mac 'faithful' had already endured 5 changes of CEO, a major architectural change that didn't go smoothly, various supply chain problems, outrageou
But you did: you were claiming that Mac software installation is a simple, functional solution. Those are usability claims, whether you realize it or not.
Since you've now started talking about unsubstantiated claims, please supply some data that backs this statement up.
That was not necessary because I understand how software installation works on the Mac (as we speak, I'm trying to get a Mac upgraded to Tiger and the f*cking Tiger installer keeps crashing with obscure error messages).
Hang on a moment, are we talking about a software upgrade, or installing packages?
Remember we were talking about software installation here, not a full system upgrade, something which OS X has been infinitely better at than Windows or any Linux distribution in my experience.
At any rate I've upgraded my OS X install to the next major version four times without incident. Again, substantiate your claim. Supply data... what error message? at what point of the install?
Between myself and my housemates there are four macs here, not one has ever experienced upgrade problems or problems when removing App bundles. I have never even heard or seen anyone discussing the kinds of problems you seem to be having with Mac OS X.
Yes, and that is the problem: you have no data to support your claims that Macintosh package management is "simple" or that it "works". If anything, the history of the Macintosh platform suggests that it has some serious problems that keep it from catching on on the desktop.
Bullshit, I've given you a lot of information to back up my claims, it's you who keeps avoiding giving specific answers to questions, and it's really starting to annoy me.
You have failed to cite even one example of a bundle that can mess up an OS X system. I can supply you with the names of hundreds of applications which haven't damaged my system and which are properly packaged, but it would be a waste of space to start quoting them all here.
Dude, and I do care when Apple's unsubstantiated marketing claims get parrotted uncritically and start affecting community efforts like Linux.
Please tell me where I "parrotted" the information I posted from, it was all from my own head, gathered from my experience using OS X. I have never, and I don't know anyone else who has ever had the issues you speak of with bundles, and since you're unable to cite even a single incidence of recorded problems with bundles I'll reiterate what I said before about you being a bad liar.
The concept of bundles has been around without substantial changes since it was first introduced 18 years ago in NeXTStep. It has been in use longer than Linux has existed, and had already been in widespread use for years when the Add/Remove Software control panel was introduced in Windows 95.
That's an awfully long time for it to have existed without me ever having seen anyone discuss the kinds of problems you say people should be experiencing.
Remember, you said that removing an App bundle was playing "russian roulette" with the system, and that people had "abandoned" the mac because it was incapable of supporting complex applications. Both unsubstantiated claims that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support.
My claims are that bundles are a suitable method of packaging applications that does not leave the system with files strewn around the system in random places.
I've backed that up with fairly simplistic but detailed enough descriptions of how bundles prevent what you're claiming they cause, and all you've been able to do is mindlessly repeat the same things over and over about how they don't work without providing a scrap of evidence that your claims are true.
"How can you "refute" anything when you don't provide any data? All these claims from people like you about Macintosh usability, growth, performance, ease of development have no data to back them up."
Dude, don't care.
You've completely lost it, I never talked about usability, growth, performance or ease of development. I provided you with detailed descriptions of what I was talking about, which is package management on the Mac. I don't know what other data I can supply you with about that subject.
If you want to rant about the cult-of-mac zealots, feel free. But please, find someone who actually subscribes to that point of view. I'm not religious about operating systems, but I hate to see someone spreading misinformation about them. I'd probably have defended Windows if you made claims that it was unsuitable for the desktop as well.
"Are you suggesting that removing files is beyond the technical expertise of most users?
Yes, I am. The fact that you don't get it speaks for itself."
Where can I get some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Okay, taking this in context, you're suggesting that navigating to an item called "Control Panel" nested two levels deep in a menu which appears out of a button marked "Start" is somehow a much easier concept to grasp than browsing through your file system to a directory nested two levels deep in the filesystem and dragging a single file to the trash to remove it. Neither method is intuitive or simple, and neither would appear to be simpler than the other.
As for Linux package managers, none of them are intuitive to use either, it's not obvious to anyone on the planet what emerge world or apt-get dist-upgrade does unless they are already familiar with the package manager in question.
No, I just pointed out that OS X is no threat to Linux (see the original story) and justified my statement.
You justified your statement with FUD and lies, and after that had been thoroughly refuted, attempted to change history and claim that you actually meant something else.
You're a bad liar with a poor memory.
"Don't you realize how stupid it is to blather on about "Startup Items" and "Frameworks" and "Bundles" and "Fink" and then claim that the Macintosh is intuitive? Why the hell would any normal user care to understand any of that systems stuff? Windows and Linux both have solutions to installing and uninstalling software that automate things and don't bother users with all that technical nonsense."
Users don't bother with "all that technical nonsense", If I want to remove a piece of software that is installed on my system, I remove a file. Are you suggesting that removing files is beyond the technical expertise of most users?
You're an ignorant buffoon, and you think you know everything about operating systems and take it as a personal insult that Mac OS X doesn't work the way you think it should.
Also, I've never claimed that there was anything intuitive about this method of removing software, only that bundles don't leave packages strewn around the system and that people aren't abandoning the Mac because it can't handle the same tasks as Windows and Linux, which is what you claimed.
While we're on the subject of intuition though, none of this stuff is intuitive, it's all jargon that we've learned to be able to use our computers effectively. I'm not trying to convert anyone to Mac or evangelise the platform, I'm simply refuting the nonsense you're spouting.
I don't care that you're incapable of comprehending how bundles work in Mac OS X, I care that there is something disputing the rubbish that you've been spouting, and that's done. Now you've resorted to repeating the same drivel but without any reasons, my work is done.
You know you're wrong about what you said in the beginning, and you've shifted your argument from "Mac OS X isn't suitable for advanced users who need to install complicated software" to "it's not intuitive". Which isn't what I was saying in the first place.
"Macintosh will get Windows and Linux-like package management (if Apple doesn't go out of business first). But, like Intel processors, multitasking, UNIX, and lots of other stuff, Mac die-hards like you will defend the inferior Macintosh design choices until Apple finally gets around to implementing it, and then you'll claim that it didn't really exist until Apple implemented it."
Multitasking? I guess you must be talking about OS 9 and previous... The Mac has had multitasking since system 7 I think, at any rate I'm a Unix die-hard who thinks Mac OS was a piece of shit before OS X, so don't accuse me of defending it.
Intel processors? Who cares? I wanted OS X, and if the PPC was holding it back, then good riddance to it.
Anyway, all your sweeping generalisations about me are unrelated to the original topic, and just garbage that you're spewing to make yourself feel better. Why not just admit that you don't understand enough about OS X to critique it's packaging concepts?
"There is nothing wrong with changing system settings and all that (indeed, it is unavoidable), as long as they get restored properly on uninstall. Windows and Linux do that, Macintosh does not."
/Library/StartupItems directory and tell the system to start it.
/etc/ directory and so on, but I have yet to encounter one that has caused any problems and I'm sure poor packaging is possible on any system. A StartupItem is very similar to a package on other operating systems, except that there is no installation step.
/Library/StartupItems directory and trashing the file bundle.
I'm not sure I understand.
What sort of changes? to which system settings?
Are you being deliberately vague, or can you give an example?
"Package managers don't "protect" you, they provide a well-defined mechanism by which users can install and uninstall applications cleanly. Windows and Linux have such mechanisms (Linux's even handles dependencies), Macintosh does not."
You're talking about package managers having the ability to reverse changes to system files. That sounds a lot like protection to me. Again though, it's hard to tell because you're being so non-specific about the type of changes you mean. I think you're making a lot of wrong assumptions about how Mac OS X works.
"What is your suggested method of removing application bundles which are no longer in use?
You go to the package manager, get a complete list of what is and isn't installed, and make your selection of what you want installed. The rest should be automatic."
No, I go to the directory where the bundle I want to remove is, and trash it just like I would any other file. The rest is automatic.
"No, they are not called "frameworks" or "startup items" in the real world. And if hunting around for leftover shared libraries, daemons, and other stuff makes you happy, you deserve your Macintosh. Just don't try telling the rest of us that that sort of crap is what we all should be reduced to."
Mac OS X isn't Linux or Windows or any other operating system at all, you confuse your own ignorance for some sort of all seeing eye that allows you to see how all operating systems work.
StartupItems are not the same as Daemons, Daemons are an element inside the StartupItem bundle, along with most of the other resources that are usually strewn around on Unix systems.
StartupItems often use installer packages to facilitate privilege escalation through a graphical sudo. These sort of packages often don't do anything at all except place the item in the
When you remove a startupitem, you generally remove all associated files, but not the data created by them. The sort of behaviour I'd expect from any uninstaller.
It's certainly possible to make StartupItems that spew rubbish all over your hard drive, put files in the
In short, a StartupItem is conceptually similar to a package that remains (literally and metaphorically) bundled, even when in use, so there should be very little if any interference with the rest of the system.
Frameworks are a similar concept except that they contain a system library. Installation and removal of Frameworks and StartupItems are as simple as placing them in the correct directories or removing them from said directories. From at least 10.2 onward StartupItems and Frameworks can be installed automatically by double clicking.
I guess it could be dumbed down a bit more, by making some kind of thing that points you at the directories or puts them in a list with an info dialog about each one, but at the moment I have precisely one StartupItem installed, so it's not exactly rocket surgery to figure out which one I want to remove.
Another emerging trend is to add Uninstall as an installation method in package managers, but usually this is just the equivalent of going to the
So that covers the Mac side of things, but for the Unix side of things, th
"Yeah, the program is gone, but the install isn't necessarily gone. The software may have"...
/Library/Frameworks
/Library/StartupItems
.dpkg and .RPM packages are far worse than App bundles because I could include "rm -rf /" in the install script and be assured that it would run with root privileges. Does that count as "other things"?
.app directories into the trash is playing Russian roulette with your system.
"modified system settings"
What operating system provides protections against this kind of thing? I guess you could claim the system restore points in Win XP/ME do, but we all know they don't work properly.
"installed shared libraries"
These are called frameworks, and will be in bundles in ~/Library/Frameworks or
"installed daemons"
These are called startupitems, and will be in bundles in ~/Library/StartupItems or
"changed file associations"
Once the associated application is removed the system will automatically default to the next registered application on the system that handles that filetype.
"and done a lot of other things."
What other things? No package manager can possibly protect your system against unspecified "other things". I could just state that
"Other software may depend simply on being able to invoke the application."
What's your proposed solution to this scenario? A package manager could scarcely do any better in a situation where you want to delete something that other applications are dependant upon, particularly if you just trash the program in question.
Dragging
I don't follow your line of reasoning. The install of Mac OS X that I'm using has been with me through three different PowerBooks and four different versions of Mac OS X. I've probably trashed or overwritten hundreds of bundles and have yet to experience any problems that weren't easily solved.
What is your suggested method of removing application bundles which are no longer in use?
"Yes; that's because most users that actually need more complex software configurations have long ago abandoned the platform because it doesn't support it well."
You're trolling. Your shallow analysis of bundle management and the preposterous and immature statement above shows that you have little understanding of how OS X works, and at best a tenuous grasp on how package management on any other operating system works.
Please try to stick to posting about subjects which you actually have some knowledge about in future.
Never stopped Windows from being popular...
No, the IBM PC took over the market within 2 years, DOS hitched along for the ride.
The reason that the IBM PC took over the market was because it was the right computer (business oriented, super number crunching, fast hi-res text display), at the right time, from the right people.
The IBM PC would still have stormed the market if it was running CP/M.
MS-DOS played an insignificant role in the early success of the PC, if anything it hindered developers and owners of businesses already running on CP/M machines from moving to the PC until they were convinced that it was going to be a roaring success.
"...the bytecode interpreter is still available and can be toggled on at compile time, for those that want to use it anyway (because they purchased a license from Apple..."
I'd love to know why the hell the ft2 library supplied with x11 on OS X still renders truetype fonts like every other version of ft2, if they own these patents and it's just a matter of changing some options at compile time. Would apple really sue their own coders for infringing a patent in their own product?
Double-thanks Apple!
The positive things he has done for the industry you ask. Well you may say Windows sucks - but software like windows is what helped bring the non-technical person to the computer - and that brought their money - which helped increase the computer industry to what it is today.
You don't seem to have a very good grasp of reality, Microsoft Windows wasn't an attempt to make life easier for non technical people, it was to prevent all their customers from leaving them by using the same strategy they did with MS-DOS.
Remember, they started out with an OS that was essentially a crappy knock-off of CP/M, called MS-DOS. MS-DOS actually made life worse for anyone with CP/M experience by having an even shittier interface and shittier tools than CP/M.
Then a few years later, fearing that the world would move the Mac and other platforms sporting next generation interfaces, Microsoft started a FUD campaign where their salesmen and executives would dismiss GUI based computers as toys only good for grannies and simpletons, while they worked on their own poor clone of the competition.
Microsoft hold the industry back rather than improving it, by seizing on any new technology and making a crappier version of it and then pushing it onto their customers with agressive marketing, FUD, and special pricing.
As increasing the computer industry to what it is today, have you looked at the computer industry lately? It's a sick place, with Microsoft pulling almost all of the shots, not necessarily because they make good software, but because they are good at ruthlessly manipulating the market to their own ends using their holy trinity of marketing, FUD, and underpricing to maintain control.
Anyway, with that out of the way, what positive things were you saying he'd done for the computer industry?
The only reason I can think of for using virtual desktops is if you're some kind of Linux zealot.
I've been trying to take this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, but I can't figure it out...
I always ignore the multiple desktop features and disable the pager in X11 window managers, does that make me a Mac zealot or a Windows zealot?
Conversely, I know people who religiously use multiple desktops in Windows who won't touch Linux with a 10 ft pole. Are they still a Linux zealot?
I'm so confused.
1. The icon you're hovering over expands to help you see what you're clicking on and hit the target correctly. (Mac OS X Dock.)
:D
I'm a Mac OS X user, and have been for the past 3 and half years, and though I have always liked the dock, I despise the icon zooming feature not because it's flashy or eats CPU/GPU, but becaue it's awful from a usability standpoint. Things that you are trying to click on should not move away from, then toward your mouse as you get closer.
The idea of the entire dock expanding and contracting, and having different sized icons is hideous. Drop/click targets should not move as you're trying to click on them. Yuck.
2. Windows can be flipped over so that notes can be placed for later reference. (Sun Looking Glass)
This could be achieved using other methods. Programs have been popping up windows to allow you to edit preferences and other data for quite some time now. There's no reason that a sheet couldn't drop down from the window title bar or pop up from pressing a button. That feature of looking glass stemmed from the developer desperately trying to find a use for a new technology rather than it being a needed feature looking for a good implimentation. Not to mention the fact that the flipping effect could easily have been simulated in a 2d environment.
3. Objects on a table-screen can be moved by dragging your finger, rotated by moving a second finger outside of the object being dragged, and copied by dragging two fingers around the object(s) to highlight an area. (See here)
And while we're on the subject of hardware that no-one has yet, why don't we just use a neuro-interface to transmit the computer's interface directly into the users brain using our 50Ghz 20 CPU superduperwoopercomputer.
Feel free to use Notepad. Or, you can get the free Word, Excel, or PowerPoint reader.
Uh huh. Let me guess, you live at home and are still at school right?
I have to be able to create, and modify Word documents and have a reasonably high chance that the recipient will be able to open any documents I create in Microsoft Office, complete with formatting, pagination, etc. I can't send people documents that accidentally overflow a buffer in MS Word because the author of the export filter didn't understand the format properly because he was making educated guesses at how Word stores data.
My office suite needs to be made by someone with access to Microsoft's documentation, currently that means Office for Windows or Office for Mac. I'd like my choice of computing platform not to be limited by my choice of office suite.
What gives them the right to treat my work in that way after I have already paid them?
I didnt realized your paying money for something entitled you to so many rights. I demand to have full access to the source code and structure of the save game files for Doom 3!!!
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm not asking for access to their source code, I'm asking for them to document the structure for data that is saved by their product. You're making stuff up.
Is there a MS rep over there, FORCING you to save in their file format? Last I checked, you could save in a ton of alternate file formats, including HTML. And last I checked, HTML didnt require MS Office to view.
Have you ever tried saving a document in Microsoft's HTML format and then looking at it in any browser except IE? Not to mention the fact that the HTML, like all Word export filters strips out a lot of formatting even when viewed in IE.
Stop being a typical whiney Slashdot bitch.
Stop being a typical AC Slashdot troll.
but that doesn't mean Microsoft has any legal obligation to open their formats and it's a bit silly for anyone to "demand" it of them.
I'm not demanding anything of them, but I don't think it's valid to say that I shouldn't complain about the fact that they go out of their way to thwart interoperability, and I shouldn't ask for better treatment from a company of which I'm a customer.
I'm trying to spark a bit of debate about openness, because it interests me to find out what viewpoints people on the other side of the fence have. So far all people have been able to say is "it's a free market d000d!" or "shut up and stop whining", no one has been able to provide a good reason why Microsoft should be able to keep the format they store my data in a secret.
If the "free market" was allowed to exist completely unchecked, Multinationals would have all it's employees working for a cup of rice a week and chained to their desks if they thought it increased their profits,
I'd be happy if Microsoft would release their documentation about their file formats, I don't want them to write new export filters, or save in a different format. As it is, no one can make a reliable import filter for Word documents for any other office suite, and I find that annoying.