Adobe's Flex/Flash product won't let Photoshop, and Illustrator file formats be embedded into Flash
Because these formats are designed for editing, not presentation.
Its the same reason the movie theaters get a finished product and not all the raw footage and sound bytes from the recording of a movie and a seperate file telling them how to mix it all together. There may be data in the original formats that should never be sent to the client, likewise sending it would be inefficient anyway, especially if its not viewed.
Finally:
They tried, sort of, with Macromedia Generator (okay, Macromedia tried actually) and it worked okay, until Adobe killed it... and then sued out of existence the open source alternative that popped up to replace it.
The problem is that people like yourself think that Google can sandbox NaCl effectively... even though we get reports every day or two about a new exploit, and how most of the time it got around the sandboxing.
NaCl is like trying to sandbox ActiveX controls. Its a really stupid idea BEGGING for being broken. You're basically saying that you think Google is going to be able to write code to do with and they are SO good at doing so, that it won't be exploitable... meaning it would effectively be the first time in the history of computing that someone has writing un-exploitable code.
Photoshop and Illustrator are not part of flash directly, they are irrelevant.
Illustrator does just fine with SVGs however, though it doesn't support flowing text which is freaking obnoxious, especially since Inkscape does stupid crap like setting the background color of flowing text to the same color as the foreground... which looks fine in Inscape... and of course completely wrong in any other rendering environment... and they refuse to fix it as 'flowing text isn't standard' except it is, just not ratified... like the rest of the 1.2 standard they they half ass support when it suits them.
You don't have to change your use of Photoshop or Illustrator to work with HTML5 or SVGs. They are just as useful/buggy in dealing with that format as they are any other.
No, but it took huge balls at the time to say "we're not supporting this anymore. "
Not really, they knew at the time that they had a game changer product... a smart phone that didn't suck ass, which is the case for all other smart phones at the time. With that, they KNEW they were going to sell and they KNEW they could call the shots... and so did everyone else (outside of silly slashdotters who still don't get it) which is why AT&T slurped Steves wang for a couple years and let him tell them how they were going to run their network in order for them to get the product.
For reference, to anyone outside the zealots that make up the slashdot/GPL community, h264 is an open standard by everyone else's definition of the word open. Its only here that people can't understand the definition of open is that which is defined by RMS. Those standards actually make it fairly clear that right now WebM does not qualify as open (though its simply a matter of a statement from google making it so so I'm not arguing that its different in that respect based on a technicality).
People already had Flash because of Newgrounds and some other game sites
No... people had flash because its come preinstalled since Windows XP at least. Whatever site you reference that few people have ever heard of has nothing to do with it.
Yes, thats what happens when you are at the end of a new product life cycle. The previous 10-15 years not everyone owned a laptop or computer so sales were 'higher than normal' as people bought them.
Now we're at the replacement stage. (well, not completely but pretty close).
Computers are now purchased as replacements for existing equipment, the sales rate will remain fairly flat from now on.
Virtualization isn't going to lower the number of servers out there, just change how they are used. Virtualization isn't really new in the data center, its just not something you've dealt with as you've not worked in a large data center. Its been going on since the mainframe days, it just seems special now as PCs have gotten to the point of being powerful enough to make virtualization worth talking about (that and the hardware support helps). Virtualization just adds at best another more memory intensive layer into the stack we've already been using for years. If anything it will actually cause an increase in resource usage, not a decrease.
Sun wasn't the first to think of Thin clients, and this is the second time 'the cloud' has been 'the next big thing' in my short life time. This cloud is better connected, but otherwise the same as the last cloud. We called them VANs (value added networks) and used them primarily for EDI translation, but otherwise the data flowed over the exact same physical connection types as it does today. The networks never go away, but popularity ebs and flows as people ride fads without understanding why they are doing it. Basically people like yourself cause these things to be 'the next big thing'... again... because you just don't bother to know your history.
You would be wrong. They may have SOME competent programmers, but they are a tiny minority at best.
Adobe's products will not run on case sensitive file systems.
NO amount of mismanagement can cause that. You can not end up in that situation with out actively doing things that are undeniably considered bad practice by anyone with half of a clue.
You're an idiot. I can safely say this because you start off by saying:
I don't know what you mean about openness, it is still awesome.
And follow it up by saying:
I loaded up a hacked version of BBC iPlayer (which uses Flash, at least until tomorrow's update) that works over mobile networks (normally it is limited to wifi),
Its very open... as you talk about hacking proprietary software to get it to work.
I could go on about the rest of your post but basically everything you're fanboying for in your post is a good example of something that is broken as well.
'I have to use the beta version because the stable one doesn't do what I want'
'I had to root my phone because I didn't like the original software and no one kept it up'
You really are just illustrating the original posts point... Now that you got no flash, and you yourself are talking about proprietary apps and the non-openness of your own device, ah well, why bother. If you can't see how silly you look by rereading your own post, you probably never will.
But none of this directly implies that you should not be allowed to install it on your own phone. Steve makes the case that Flash sucks, but at the end of the article a thinking person does not "better understand why [Apple] do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads." There is no logical connection to support that outcome, even if we emerge from the letter hating Flash more than ever. Again, his premises were spot-on, but his logic was broken, so he pulled a conclusion out of his butt and the masses lapped it up. And to those of you who ignore this sleight of hand and argue that Apple must do whatever it can to restore a sense of childlike wonder and superior design to humanity: shut up, you stupid fanboy zombies. Brains like yours are the reason we have the politicians we have.
I agree with your assessment based the letter alone, ignoring everything outside of it.
If you take common sense and wisdom into the equation though, it becomes a little different.
You are not allowed to run improper fuel in your car. It is in fact illegal to do so everywhere I'm aware of that has any sort of sane laws for various types of both environmental and personal protection. It is bad for a number of reasons, just like flash (on anything imho).
Why are you not complaining about the fact that you can't run any random fuel in your car legally? Its the same thing. The reason is because you were born with that law in effect and have known no different, and you don't think you know better than someone else because of it.
Why are there laws against it? Cause its bad. Its potentially dangerous, the wrong fuel can cause all sorts of combustion issues (ranging form 'it dont run' to 'holy shit, I just blew grandma to the moon, Pa!'), it can be very bad environmentally, it can damage your car and make it run slower or even cause an crash due to resource starvation issues... JUST LIKE FLASH.
Yet... you don't complain when someone doesn't let you do it to your car, but you do when its for your phone. Hell, you don't even consider doing something stupid like that with your car... yet you're gung ho about doing it with your mobile device.
So heres the actual connection between Steves letter and when its not allowed on the phone.
Users are ignorant of the technical details involved and they WANT TO STAY THAT WAY. They DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO CARE ABOUT SHIT THAT YOU CARE ABOUT AS A GEEK.
Users don't give a shit why they can't use leaded gas in their cars, they just don't do it because someone else figured that part out for them, and they can get on with more important things like their own lives. Because of legal requirements, it becomes much harder for your average person to FIND a way to refuel with improper fuel, so the problem is more or less fixed... just like the iDevice area. Its become much harder for your average person to FIND a way to fuckup their iPhone with bad software.
Not allowing flash to run on an iDevice is the same as not allowing leaded gas to be sold. Leaded gas mind you was far more of an environmental concern than anything else, but the point was to protect people from their own ignorance, and thats all that preventing flash on the phone was.
Do to the practicality of 'the fill up', actually making it DRM-hard to use the wrong gas isn't possible, but the iPhone can make the problem DRM-hard, and they have. Which makes it not impossible, but difficult enough that the only people that make it that far entirely deserve the raping their battery gets in order to run some retarded flash file that doesn't even work right in a touch environment.
And not a peep out of the Dept. of Justice on such anti-competitive practices.
Because they aren't doing anything anti-competitive. THEY get to determine how their products are sold. They can choose to only allow things to be bought for their products in their store.
Anti-competitive practices would be coming into wal-mart and saying 'if you want to sell iPhones, you can't sell any other kind of phone'... or course walmart would tell them to fuck off, but a smaller local chain may have to capitulate in order to not lose sales of the iPhone... and THAT is anti-competitive, and THAT is what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Contrary to what you may think, Apple does have complete and total control over how ITS PRODUCTS are sold and handled. It can not tell anyone else how to handle other peoples products in their store. Apple say 'AT&T is the only company getting an iphone!' and thats okay. They can not say 'AT&T can ONLY sell the iPhone, no other phones if they want ours'
Neither you or anyone else gets to tell Apple how to sell or what to do with their product just because you don't like it. I don't like that you're such a self entitled spoiled brat, but that doesn't give me the right to force you to not be such a douche does it?
In the end....it's the consumers who lose. Less choice.
Thats the GPL vs Anti-GPL argument. You're arguing that losing flash means losing choice. Which is like me saying that GPL takes away choice because I can no longer NOT distribute the code.
And in both cases, it can be interpreted the other way. The user is being protected from being locked into a single vendors implementation.
All apps must be approved by Apple. All developers must share a 1/3 of their profits with Apple. Is it ANY wonder Apple exceeded even Exxon-Mobil?
And according to every financial report they've ever put out, the iTunes music store and the App store do just a little better than breaking even. This is publicly verifiable fact. They aren't sitting on 40 billion in cash because of their death grip on Apple developers, and no matter how many times you try to imply that, it still won't be the case.
The reason they've exceeded even Exxon-Mobile is because they are selling products people WANT. Exxon sells a product people need, people only buy as much of it as they have to and will buy it from the lowest priced person they can find. Exxon still makes a fortune because they can take advantage of the fact that its basically a requirement for many Americans to buy gas to commute at this point in time. Apple on the other hand makes a fortune selling products at almost 100% markup that are simply trendy gadgets... but trendy gadgets which people are willing to pay way more for because they are that well done.
Unfortunately, your too busy blaming Apple for being evil to notice why they are doing as well as they are.
How does this world look for developers?
I can tell you from experience that it looks incredibly profitable and the 'Apple Tax' you're referring to doesn't' really add up to anything more the cost of the service unless you're a big developer with an existing infrastructure for other reasons. This only hurts the big guys (and only a little), it does nothing but good for the little guys, which you'd know if you had any experience what so ever selling software to random people on the Internet. A proper sales infrastructure is a pain in the ass for a small shop to maintain, so you're going to be paying someone else to do it unless you're an idiot or have far more time than money or brains. Now go compare pricing for that service and get back to me when you find the competition that you'd be so eager to use instead of Apple.
You're complaining about something that you clearly do not understand and have never been involved with.
Turns out you need counseling, not changes in the military.
The uncontrollable break down you experienced that we'll call the third paragraph of your post makes it appear as though your biggest problem is your own self loathing. Your parents and the military could very well be douches, but you clearly are not comfortable with your own sexuality.
You seem to care more about your "cause" than practicality and being happy, and too stupid to realize that you fell for a marketing gimmick from a soup company.
Neither Campbell's advertising campaign nor the change of military's position on gays ACTUALLY changed anything outside of your head. They didn't make people more tolarent. They didn't change anyone's understanding, they were just token gestures designed to draw you in and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
You find value in these things because they help you push back your own self disgust by giving you some justification and reassurance that you are in fact an acceptable human being.
You ARE an acceptable human being, but you need to learn to be happy with who you are FIRST, then you'll discover that most of the rest of the world just doesn't actually give a shit about your sexuality and doesn't want to know about it any more than we want to hear some heterosexual closet case that constantly talks about his sexual conquests.
People just don't give a fuck, your self loathing makes you think others care. We really don't. And now amount of silly token gestures is going to change that.
Just curious, can you name an OS that doesn't do it in one form or another?
Keep in mind, just because you aren't parsing raw file data doesn't mean you aren't parsing. Parsing memory from an ioctl is still doing the same thing, might be a simpler file format, like say a C structure, but its still parsing.
Shouldn't they have reimplemented this feature in userspace at some point during that long process?
No.
Doing so would have broken compatibility of a LOT of applications that use that API, and you don't do that between major OS releases. Well, okay, people with customers don't do that between real OS releases, I realize no one in OSS gives a flying fuck about compatibility since 'YOU HAVE THE SOURCE' but for OSes that people care about, API compatibility is important.
You do realize your modern Linux parse fonts in the kernel as well right?
When you pass in a new font to the frame buffer, via ioctl, the kernel then parses that data and validates it. This font information is FAR less complex than what MS is doing, and is FAR less likely to be exploited as parsing is done mostly by the C compiler (via the use of structures) and fixed data sizes so its relatively easy to not fuck up.
None the less, EVERY OS does this to different extents, this is just a bug like all others. You can blame MS for allowing such a complicated format to end up being parsed by the kernel and increasing the odds of this happening, but you can't call them out like they are unique in doing it.
The reality is most likely that WinDiv (The division responsible for the OS) made the assumption that fonts would not be loaded from insecure sources, e.g. Word documents.
The bug here is a kernel level exploit by user land code, not administrative, just normal users. If the kernel team doesn't expect fonts to be loaded from 'insecure' locations then the API should have required special access, as it is, any user can root the machine, Internet or no Internet, Word or no Word. I can write an app to exploit this, just need to get someone to run it.
Thats not a miscommunication issue, thats a fucking huge mistake, it doesn't MATTER what the word team tried, it shouldn't have worked.
Second, the kernel should validate ALL INCOMING DATA before doing anything with it. If you can't do this at fast enough rates, you preprocess it and let the kernel put it somewhere in the VM.
You ALWAYS validate data coming into the kernel from userland. Always. No exceptions. ALWAYS.
Sigh, the userland program is just a preprocessor, the kernel still has to parse and validate the memory it gets passed to it. The compiler does most of the parsing code for you thanks to those neat things called structures.
The two kernels may do things differently, but they are both most certainly parsing fonts. You just seem to think that if the compiler does it for you or that if its done exclusively in memory that its not parsing, which is just silly logic.
is force to use the apple store where apple earns tons of money.
Their financial reports, which are legal documents to the government would disagree with the idea that apps 'earn tons of money', unless by 'earns tons of money' you mean 'do a little better than break even'.
Second, Tim Cook was brought in with Steve when he came back and its likely that Tim Cook was Steve's right hand man till the day he died for a reason.
I agree, Steve WAS the driving factor, but Tim Cook deserves his spot to shine, this is the go who Steve said 'go do this' and Tim Cook made it happen. Not sure if he'll be as good at his new roll in Steve's spot, but Tim Cook is a BIG reason why Apple is where it is today.
I'd take a 400 mhz P2 over a 400mhz 386 too, MHZ doesn't mean shit outside of a particular architecture. Also comparing a 10 year old CPU to a modern CPU is more or less lying to make your point.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is funny, because someone forgot to tell you that ActionScript IS actually JavaScript.
Adobe's Flex/Flash product won't let Photoshop, and Illustrator file formats be embedded into Flash
Because these formats are designed for editing, not presentation.
Its the same reason the movie theaters get a finished product and not all the raw footage and sound bytes from the recording of a movie and a seperate file telling them how to mix it all together. There may be data in the original formats that should never be sent to the client, likewise sending it would be inefficient anyway, especially if its not viewed.
Finally:
They tried, sort of, with Macromedia Generator (okay, Macromedia tried actually) and it worked okay, until Adobe killed it ... and then sued out of existence the open source alternative that popped up to replace it.
The problem is that people like yourself think that Google can sandbox NaCl effectively ... even though we get reports every day or two about a new exploit, and how most of the time it got around the sandboxing.
NaCl is like trying to sandbox ActiveX controls. Its a really stupid idea BEGGING for being broken. You're basically saying that you think Google is going to be able to write code to do with and they are SO good at doing so, that it won't be exploitable ... meaning it would effectively be the first time in the history of computing that someone has writing un-exploitable code.
Photoshop and Illustrator are not part of flash directly, they are irrelevant.
Illustrator does just fine with SVGs however, though it doesn't support flowing text which is freaking obnoxious, especially since Inkscape does stupid crap like setting the background color of flowing text to the same color as the foreground ... which looks fine in Inscape ... and of course completely wrong in any other rendering environment ... and they refuse to fix it as 'flowing text isn't standard' except it is, just not ratified ... like the rest of the 1.2 standard they they half ass support when it suits them.
You don't have to change your use of Photoshop or Illustrator to work with HTML5 or SVGs. They are just as useful/buggy in dealing with that format as they are any other.
Except that they aren't identical twins ... and one is pretty than the other, but yea, other than facts, they are exactly alike!
No, but it took huge balls at the time to say "we're not supporting this anymore. "
Not really, they knew at the time that they had a game changer product ... a smart phone that didn't suck ass, which is the case for all other smart phones at the time. With that, they KNEW they were going to sell and they KNEW they could call the shots ... and so did everyone else (outside of silly slashdotters who still don't get it) which is why AT&T slurped Steves wang for a couple years and let him tell them how they were going to run their network in order for them to get the product.
For reference, to anyone outside the zealots that make up the slashdot/GPL community, h264 is an open standard by everyone else's definition of the word open. Its only here that people can't understand the definition of open is that which is defined by RMS. Those standards actually make it fairly clear that right now WebM does not qualify as open (though its simply a matter of a statement from google making it so so I'm not arguing that its different in that respect based on a technicality).
Your logic is simply invalid and unquantifiable.
People already had Flash because of Newgrounds and some other game sites
No ... people had flash because its come preinstalled since Windows XP at least. Whatever site you reference that few people have ever heard of has nothing to do with it.
Desktop and laptop sales are already in decline.
Yes, thats what happens when you are at the end of a new product life cycle. The previous 10-15 years not everyone owned a laptop or computer so sales were 'higher than normal' as people bought them.
Now we're at the replacement stage. (well, not completely but pretty close).
Computers are now purchased as replacements for existing equipment, the sales rate will remain fairly flat from now on.
Virtualization isn't going to lower the number of servers out there, just change how they are used. Virtualization isn't really new in the data center, its just not something you've dealt with as you've not worked in a large data center. Its been going on since the mainframe days, it just seems special now as PCs have gotten to the point of being powerful enough to make virtualization worth talking about (that and the hardware support helps). Virtualization just adds at best another more memory intensive layer into the stack we've already been using for years. If anything it will actually cause an increase in resource usage, not a decrease.
Sun wasn't the first to think of Thin clients, and this is the second time 'the cloud' has been 'the next big thing' in my short life time. This cloud is better connected, but otherwise the same as the last cloud. We called them VANs (value added networks) and used them primarily for EDI translation, but otherwise the data flowed over the exact same physical connection types as it does today. The networks never go away, but popularity ebs and flows as people ride fads without understanding why they are doing it. Basically people like yourself cause these things to be 'the next big thing' ... again ... because you just don't bother to know your history.
You would be wrong. They may have SOME competent programmers, but they are a tiny minority at best.
Adobe's products will not run on case sensitive file systems.
NO amount of mismanagement can cause that. You can not end up in that situation with out actively doing things that are undeniably considered bad practice by anyone with half of a clue.
You're an idiot. I can safely say this because you start off by saying:
I don't know what you mean about openness, it is still awesome.
And follow it up by saying:
I loaded up a hacked version of BBC iPlayer (which uses Flash, at least until tomorrow's update) that works over mobile networks (normally it is limited to wifi),
Its very open ... as you talk about hacking proprietary software to get it to work.
I could go on about the rest of your post but basically everything you're fanboying for in your post is a good example of something that is broken as well.
'I have to use the beta version because the stable one doesn't do what I want'
'I had to root my phone because I didn't like the original software and no one kept it up'
You really are just illustrating the original posts point ... Now that you got no flash, and you yourself are talking about proprietary apps and the non-openness of your own device, ah well, why bother. If you can't see how silly you look by rereading your own post, you probably never will.
But none of this directly implies that you should not be allowed to install it on your own phone. Steve makes the case that Flash sucks, but at the end of the article a thinking person does not "better understand why [Apple] do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads." There is no logical connection to support that outcome, even if we emerge from the letter hating Flash more than ever. Again, his premises were spot-on, but his logic was broken, so he pulled a conclusion out of his butt and the masses lapped it up. And to those of you who ignore this sleight of hand and argue that Apple must do whatever it can to restore a sense of childlike wonder and superior design to humanity: shut up, you stupid fanboy zombies. Brains like yours are the reason we have the politicians we have.
I agree with your assessment based the letter alone, ignoring everything outside of it.
If you take common sense and wisdom into the equation though, it becomes a little different.
You are not allowed to run improper fuel in your car. It is in fact illegal to do so everywhere I'm aware of that has any sort of sane laws for various types of both environmental and personal protection. It is bad for a number of reasons, just like flash (on anything imho).
Why are you not complaining about the fact that you can't run any random fuel in your car legally? Its the same thing. The reason is because you were born with that law in effect and have known no different, and you don't think you know better than someone else because of it.
Why are there laws against it? Cause its bad. Its potentially dangerous, the wrong fuel can cause all sorts of combustion issues (ranging form 'it dont run' to 'holy shit, I just blew grandma to the moon, Pa!'), it can be very bad environmentally, it can damage your car and make it run slower or even cause an crash due to resource starvation issues ... JUST LIKE FLASH.
Yet ... you don't complain when someone doesn't let you do it to your car, but you do when its for your phone. Hell, you don't even consider doing something stupid like that with your car ... yet you're gung ho about doing it with your mobile device.
So heres the actual connection between Steves letter and when its not allowed on the phone.
Users are ignorant of the technical details involved and they WANT TO STAY THAT WAY. They DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO CARE ABOUT SHIT THAT YOU CARE ABOUT AS A GEEK.
Users don't give a shit why they can't use leaded gas in their cars, they just don't do it because someone else figured that part out for them, and they can get on with more important things like their own lives. Because of legal requirements, it becomes much harder for your average person to FIND a way to refuel with improper fuel, so the problem is more or less fixed ... just like the iDevice area. Its become much harder for your average person to FIND a way to fuckup their iPhone with bad software.
Not allowing flash to run on an iDevice is the same as not allowing leaded gas to be sold. Leaded gas mind you was far more of an environmental concern than anything else, but the point was to protect people from their own ignorance, and thats all that preventing flash on the phone was.
Do to the practicality of 'the fill up', actually making it DRM-hard to use the wrong gas isn't possible, but the iPhone can make the problem DRM-hard, and they have. Which makes it not impossible, but difficult enough that the only people that make it that far entirely deserve the raping their battery gets in order to run some retarded flash file that doesn't even work right in a touch environment.
And not a peep out of the Dept. of Justice on such anti-competitive practices.
Because they aren't doing anything anti-competitive. THEY get to determine how their products are sold. They can choose to only allow things to be bought for their products in their store.
Anti-competitive practices would be coming into wal-mart and saying 'if you want to sell iPhones, you can't sell any other kind of phone' ... or course walmart would tell them to fuck off, but a smaller local chain may have to capitulate in order to not lose sales of the iPhone ... and THAT is anti-competitive, and THAT is what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Contrary to what you may think, Apple does have complete and total control over how ITS PRODUCTS are sold and handled. It can not tell anyone else how to handle other peoples products in their store. Apple say 'AT&T is the only company getting an iphone!' and thats okay. They can not say 'AT&T can ONLY sell the iPhone, no other phones if they want ours'
Neither you or anyone else gets to tell Apple how to sell or what to do with their product just because you don't like it. I don't like that you're such a self entitled spoiled brat, but that doesn't give me the right to force you to not be such a douche does it?
In the end....it's the consumers who lose. Less choice.
Thats the GPL vs Anti-GPL argument. You're arguing that losing flash means losing choice. Which is like me saying that GPL takes away choice because I can no longer NOT distribute the code.
And in both cases, it can be interpreted the other way. The user is being protected from being locked into a single vendors implementation.
All apps must be approved by Apple. All developers must share a 1/3 of their profits with Apple. Is it ANY wonder Apple exceeded even Exxon-Mobil?
And according to every financial report they've ever put out, the iTunes music store and the App store do just a little better than breaking even. This is publicly verifiable fact. They aren't sitting on 40 billion in cash because of their death grip on Apple developers, and no matter how many times you try to imply that, it still won't be the case.
The reason they've exceeded even Exxon-Mobile is because they are selling products people WANT. Exxon sells a product people need, people only buy as much of it as they have to and will buy it from the lowest priced person they can find. Exxon still makes a fortune because they can take advantage of the fact that its basically a requirement for many Americans to buy gas to commute at this point in time. Apple on the other hand makes a fortune selling products at almost 100% markup that are simply trendy gadgets ... but trendy gadgets which people are willing to pay way more for because they are that well done.
Unfortunately, your too busy blaming Apple for being evil to notice why they are doing as well as they are.
How does this world look for developers?
I can tell you from experience that it looks incredibly profitable and the 'Apple Tax' you're referring to doesn't' really add up to anything more the cost of the service unless you're a big developer with an existing infrastructure for other reasons. This only hurts the big guys (and only a little), it does nothing but good for the little guys, which you'd know if you had any experience what so ever selling software to random people on the Internet. A proper sales infrastructure is a pain in the ass for a small shop to maintain, so you're going to be paying someone else to do it unless you're an idiot or have far more time than money or brains. Now go compare pricing for that service and get back to me when you find the competition that you'd be so eager to use instead of Apple.
You're complaining about something that you clearly do not understand and have never been involved with.
Turns out you need counseling, not changes in the military.
The uncontrollable break down you experienced that we'll call the third paragraph of your post makes it appear as though your biggest problem is your own self loathing. Your parents and the military could very well be douches, but you clearly are not comfortable with your own sexuality.
You seem to care more about your "cause" than practicality and being happy, and too stupid to realize that you fell for a marketing gimmick from a soup company.
Neither Campbell's advertising campaign nor the change of military's position on gays ACTUALLY changed anything outside of your head. They didn't make people more tolarent. They didn't change anyone's understanding, they were just token gestures designed to draw you in and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
You find value in these things because they help you push back your own self disgust by giving you some justification and reassurance that you are in fact an acceptable human being.
You ARE an acceptable human being, but you need to learn to be happy with who you are FIRST, then you'll discover that most of the rest of the world just doesn't actually give a shit about your sexuality and doesn't want to know about it any more than we want to hear some heterosexual closet case that constantly talks about his sexual conquests.
People just don't give a fuck, your self loathing makes you think others care. We really don't. And now amount of silly token gestures is going to change that.
Get some professional help, you'll feel better.
I'm fairly certain that since they've fixed this flaw so quickly that if they had known about it specifically, they probably would have fixed it.
Just curious, can you name an OS that doesn't do it in one form or another?
Keep in mind, just because you aren't parsing raw file data doesn't mean you aren't parsing. Parsing memory from an ioctl is still doing the same thing, might be a simpler file format, like say a C structure, but its still parsing.
Shouldn't they have reimplemented this feature in userspace at some point during that long process?
No.
Doing so would have broken compatibility of a LOT of applications that use that API, and you don't do that between major OS releases. Well, okay, people with customers don't do that between real OS releases, I realize no one in OSS gives a flying fuck about compatibility since 'YOU HAVE THE SOURCE' but for OSes that people care about, API compatibility is important.
Why do you feel the need to force your crappy monospaced font on the rest of us when you post? Its not even a freaking attractive one for fucks sake.
You do realize your modern Linux parse fonts in the kernel as well right?
When you pass in a new font to the frame buffer, via ioctl, the kernel then parses that data and validates it. This font information is FAR less complex than what MS is doing, and is FAR less likely to be exploited as parsing is done mostly by the C compiler (via the use of structures) and fixed data sizes so its relatively easy to not fuck up.
None the less, EVERY OS does this to different extents, this is just a bug like all others. You can blame MS for allowing such a complicated format to end up being parsed by the kernel and increasing the odds of this happening, but you can't call them out like they are unique in doing it.
The reality is most likely that WinDiv (The division responsible for the OS) made the assumption that fonts would not be loaded from insecure sources, e.g. Word documents.
The bug here is a kernel level exploit by user land code, not administrative, just normal users. If the kernel team doesn't expect fonts to be loaded from 'insecure' locations then the API should have required special access, as it is, any user can root the machine, Internet or no Internet, Word or no Word. I can write an app to exploit this, just need to get someone to run it.
Thats not a miscommunication issue, thats a fucking huge mistake, it doesn't MATTER what the word team tried, it shouldn't have worked.
Second, the kernel should validate ALL INCOMING DATA before doing anything with it. If you can't do this at fast enough rates, you preprocess it and let the kernel put it somewhere in the VM.
You ALWAYS validate data coming into the kernel from userland. Always. No exceptions. ALWAYS.
Sigh, the userland program is just a preprocessor, the kernel still has to parse and validate the memory it gets passed to it. The compiler does most of the parsing code for you thanks to those neat things called structures.
The two kernels may do things differently, but they are both most certainly parsing fonts. You just seem to think that if the compiler does it for you or that if its done exclusively in memory that its not parsing, which is just silly logic.
is force to use the apple store where apple earns tons of money.
Their financial reports, which are legal documents to the government would disagree with the idea that apps 'earn tons of money', unless by 'earns tons of money' you mean 'do a little better than break even'.
'Every time' was that one time.
Second, Tim Cook was brought in with Steve when he came back and its likely that Tim Cook was Steve's right hand man till the day he died for a reason.
I agree, Steve WAS the driving factor, but Tim Cook deserves his spot to shine, this is the go who Steve said 'go do this' and Tim Cook made it happen. Not sure if he'll be as good at his new roll in Steve's spot, but Tim Cook is a BIG reason why Apple is where it is today.
I'd take a 400 mhz P2 over a 400mhz 386 too, MHZ doesn't mean shit outside of a particular architecture. Also comparing a 10 year old CPU to a modern CPU is more or less lying to make your point.