1) It still WON'T happen. At least not with Apple's blessing. Be assured that they'll do everything they can to make it so you can't run it on commodity hardware. Don't underestimate them, either- they know how smart you are.
2) SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JUST BUY AN APPLE. ANY Apple. The cost differences aren't that much, and you can have a machine that's sure to work as designed, everything, every time. Buy It From Apple or Don't Buy It From Apple. There is no middle ground here.
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots* for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
*: For the record, i don't think we have any hardcore zealots here on/. like i describe, so i'm not talking bout j00. Y'all know the type- and i'm not about to say that there aren't plenty of annoying windows/linux/bsd zealots either
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
P.S., we'll probably learn that it's just a matter that Intel will start making some non-important chip for them (i.e. the RTS clock or something), *NOT* the processor;)
I guess that the first 50 posts above 1 will be useful, the next 50 will start with the "ford pinto to mercedes" comparison (all modded up Insightful or Interesting), and from there it will just go downhill. I also predict 17 references to the "i've been sitting at my 6300 which should be a much better machine, waiting for this file transfer..." and at least 3 "BSD is Dying" posts.
Everything squashed to hell and clipped. Makes your ears bleed after about 10 minutes.
I think the worst mis-combination I have of heavy-handed remastering plugins is my copy of Black Sabbath's first album.
It's clamped to hell- very muffled and dead sounding, and the mix mostly resides at a fairly low level. Makes you want to boost turn it up and maybe boost the treble a tad. Problem is, it seems that all the filters and suppressors act as if they're riding atop some sort of noise gate. Ozzy's vocal wails often "spring it open", resulting in an instant volume and treble boost (and of course all the hiss, buzz, wow and flutter they were hiding), so much that it distorts the speakers in my truck stereo. Ozzy stops singing, it all falls back down to mud and silence. It's one thing to have something to muddy or too bright, but this mix-breathing is painful to listen to.
Thanks for the link! I'll be sure to check it out when i'm not so distracted (/. doesn't count).
I will agree with you also that a great deal of the end result rests in the engineer's hands when restoring audio. I *do* have some remastered CDs of old recordings (i.e. 1940's-1950's Howlin' Wolf) that are exquisite. There's just a little bit of hiss in them but otherwise it sounds like he's right in the room with you. My copy of Deep Purple's Fireball sounds great too.
I've got plenty of others (mainly the Castle Records abominations done to all the Iron Maiden remasters) where it sounds like they ran it through the NoNoise filter at 11 and called it good. Some cases beginnings or ends of songs are chopped off, and in one case they attenuated guitar feedback (which was part of the song).
I've got everything from their first album up to Seventh Son on remastered CD, and i still listen to my 20 year old tapes.
Oh well.
makes you l33t coz you don't have to look
on
Blank Keyboard
·
· Score: 1
Different process, but similar concepts. Lots of old music recordings get "destroyed" by digital remastering.
In a case like this (with both the cartoons and the music), i would personally put up with hiss, scratches, dirt and pops until they've got the remastering tools perfected.
Starting with (iirc 5.1.x) I began to see an issue when installing via FTP (using the floppies). While downloading 'base' it would get to about 46% and fail with an:
"Fatal error: Invalid realloc size of 0! - PRESS ANY KEY TO REBOOT"
message. There are a few google references (some people see it at 54%, some at 63%) and there was once a bug report on it. The bug report seems to have vanished, but when doing a test install on an unused computer, i saw the same thing. (I do the test install, because you are essentially left with an unuseable system when this fails).
I can download the full ISO and install it from that with no problems. I just prefer to do it the other way. (iirc the mini-inst iso fails with the above message as well).
Anyone else see this? It doesn't appear to be very common and i've not seen any conclusive reasoning as to what is causing it, just some random speculation from a few different google hits, some may be right, or may not.
thanks.
p.s.- top marks for the FreeBSD team though. This doesn't negate what a great achievement 5.x is turning out to be.
Who should we complain to in the KDE team about being slow and lazy in adding this feature? My Toshiba running FBSD hasn't had any troubles with the battery! Those KDE folks are slow and lazy.
er... i mean....
Good job Apple.. Glad to see someone taking some responsibility.
Cell phones will be able to take pictures, play music, capture and display video, surf the web, utilize VOIP, scan/fax/print/, and various other daily functions. They will also be the size of a small refrigerator and require a propane generator.
Is the relationship between Apple and FreeBSD okay?
This is all 'friend of a friend says' sort of stuff, but word on the IRC channels is that Apple has been doing nothing but take-take-take. Some folks justify it by saying they've hired Hubbard full-time to work on FreeBSD (which i'm sure he finds as a happy arrangement).
There are other justifications, but to me it just seems like a number fo the Fbsd folks were enamoured with the attention they were getting from Apple, and had high hopes for a win-win situation that was mutually beneficial, but over the last few to several years it has been pretty one-sided.
If it is the way it's being reported to me, it's kinda sad, really.
His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Instead, Longhorn will have a nifty lil pop-up that says:
"Windows has successfully installed a new Trojan Horse/Adserver. Before you can bein using this program
you must restart the computer. Would you like to restart the computer now?"
[Yes] [Ok]
All the Linux/OSX/Windows users will pull the "stodgy bsd user/you just want to seem l337" card. FWIW i've used fbsd for 1 year, linux for 7, windows for 3 and OSX for 2, and my opinion has been the same forever.
Just as someone noted early on, we need to make smarter users, not dumber computers. "Dumbing down" an OS, program or anything doesn't really make it more simple. It's just a facade over the real complexity underneath.
What's more, the user outgrows this crutch quickly, and then all the "simplification" stuff gets in their way from there on out.
Secondly, we don't need to introduce non-geeky people to geek-oriented OSes. They won't really get anything out of it, no differently than geeky people won't get anything out of a "user-friendly" os such as MacOS9 or Windows95. Yeah, i know that there is OSX, which is claiming to "bridge the gap", but 99% of Mac users are actually using Aqua and all it's iStuff, not puttering around the underlying *BSD bits. Some folks here will pipe up and say they spend loads of time in the guts, sure, but this is the BSD section on/. The rest of the Mac world is different.
Thirdly, if something great comes of this, well... great. More power to them. But watch for the OSX zealots* to cry foul and say "It's just another PC-Folks ripping of the Mac-Folks thing" and "Copycat OSX/BSD for the PC!" and stuff.
Fourthly, though i will say that BSD is a much better foundation that Linux (for a lot of reasons) to base an OS on, I don't expect it to reach wide popularity, no differently than some of the more "user friendly" Linux distros (Lycoris, Lindows, et al).
* by "zealots", i mean the loud, vocal segment of Mac users that Just Don't Get It(tm), not ALL Mac users.
It's a way to stop programs needing to distribute a redhat rpm and a suse rpm and a mandrake rpm and a debian deb and so on, instead you just make a lsb rpm which works on any lsb distro.
A number of things that make up the LSB have been in dispute as to whether they're the best way to do something or not. The one that comes immediately to mind is RPM-based package management. -I- prefer APT or compiling directly from source, but there are a dozen different ways to do it and they've all got their merits and pitfalls.
These are Holy Wars, they'll never be solved, and they'll keep certain people from using an LSB system alone. (here it comes:)
"Oh, but then you just install XYZ and you can do it your way."
So you start with an LSB system, then install all these other apps and utils to bend it to your will. Now, ask yourself how different that is from what we've got now with all the 750 fragmented Linux distros?
There are other things that are harder to change, i.e. filesystem layout. Once again, it's a holy war. The community will *never* come to an agreement.
There is no "one size fits all" linux, and there never will be. Different people have different needs, and most linux users (well, or at least this used to be the case) have some extraordinary needs. That's why they use linux.
Most of the people who would want a standardized base like that probably use a BSD. This is not a criticism of anyone or any system, it's just an observation.
As more and more time goes on, and i get more and more involved with computer security, malicious software removal, et al, the less and less i'm taking Symantec seriously.
It's one thing to be a paranoiaware company that preys on ppl's insecurities and naivety.
It's yet ANOTHER thing to produce some of the biggest pieces of malware around.
Thirdly, there is a small but otherwise yet undefeated collection of evidence that Symantec themselves are a contributor of some of the more "harmless" internet worms.
Slashdot Mirror
All you guys that want OSX on your x86-
1) It still WON'T happen. At least not with Apple's blessing. Be assured that they'll do everything they can to make it so you can't run it on commodity hardware. Don't underestimate them, either- they know how smart you are.
2) SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JUST BUY AN APPLE. ANY Apple. The cost differences aren't that much, and you can have a machine that's sure to work as designed, everything, every time. Buy It From Apple or Don't Buy It From Apple. There is no middle ground here.
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
/. like i describe, so i'm not talking bout j00.
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots* for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
*: For the record, i don't think we have any hardcore zealots here on
Y'all know the type- and i'm not about to say that there aren't plenty of annoying windows/linux/bsd zealots either
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
;)
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
P.S., we'll probably learn that it's just a matter that Intel will start making some non-important chip for them (i.e. the RTS clock or something), *NOT* the processor
Don't forget the
"The people who buy Macs are creative professionals" partyline that we've been hearing since Joel was still on the S.O.L.
I guess that the first 50 posts above 1 will be useful, the next 50 will start with the "ford pinto to mercedes" comparison (all modded up Insightful or Interesting), and from there it will just go downhill. I also predict 17 references to the "i've been sitting at my 6300 which should be a much better machine, waiting for this file transfer..." and at least 3 "BSD is Dying" posts.
Tell me how well i do.
Hikeeba!
Suit up kiddies, coz here it comes!
Yep... the LoudWars..
Everything squashed to hell and clipped. Makes your ears bleed after about 10 minutes.
I think the worst mis-combination I have of heavy-handed remastering plugins is my copy of Black Sabbath's first album.
It's clamped to hell- very muffled and dead sounding, and the mix mostly resides at a fairly low level. Makes you want to boost turn it up and maybe boost the treble a tad. Problem is, it seems that all the filters and suppressors act as if they're riding atop some sort of noise gate. Ozzy's vocal wails often "spring it open", resulting in an instant volume and treble boost (and of course all the hiss, buzz, wow and flutter they were hiding), so much that it distorts the speakers in my truck stereo. Ozzy stops singing, it all falls back down to mud and silence. It's one thing to have something to muddy or too bright, but this mix-breathing is painful to listen to.
Say it with me:
Norton Internet Security For XBOX....
Guaranteed to drop your framerates by 75%
Of course, it can second as a "game genie" effect by slowing the whole system down enough to make it boringly easy.
or...
How long until we've got 100,000 XBOX drones spamming and breaking into networks?
Thanks for the link! I'll be sure to check it out when i'm not so distracted (/. doesn't count).
I will agree with you also that a great deal of the end result rests in the engineer's hands when restoring audio. I *do* have some remastered CDs of old recordings (i.e. 1940's-1950's Howlin' Wolf) that are exquisite. There's just a little bit of hiss in them but otherwise it sounds like he's right in the room with you. My copy of Deep Purple's Fireball sounds great too.
I've got plenty of others (mainly the Castle Records abominations done to all the Iron Maiden remasters) where it sounds like they ran it through the NoNoise filter at 11 and called it good. Some cases beginnings or ends of songs are chopped off, and in one case they attenuated guitar feedback (which was part of the song).
I've got everything from their first album up to Seventh Son on remastered CD, and i still listen to my 20 year old tapes.
Oh well.
...at the keyboard.
Who looks at the keyboard? Really?
Different process, but similar concepts. Lots of old music recordings get "destroyed" by digital remastering.
In a case like this (with both the cartoons and the music), i would personally put up with hiss, scratches, dirt and pops until they've got the remastering tools perfected.
My $0.02 + 5.5% tax
Starting with (iirc 5.1.x) I began to see an issue when installing via FTP (using the floppies). While downloading 'base' it would get to about 46% and fail with an:
"Fatal error: Invalid realloc size of 0! - PRESS ANY KEY TO REBOOT"
message. There are a few google references (some people see it at 54%, some at 63%) and there was once a bug report on it. The bug report seems to have vanished, but when doing a test install on an unused computer, i saw the same thing. (I do the test install, because you are essentially left with an unuseable system when this fails).
I can download the full ISO and install it from that with no problems. I just prefer to do it the other way. (iirc the mini-inst iso fails with the above message as well).
Anyone else see this? It doesn't appear to be very common and i've not seen any conclusive reasoning as to what is causing it, just some random speculation from a few different google hits, some may be right, or may not.
thanks.
p.s.- top marks for the FreeBSD team though. This doesn't negate what a great achievement 5.x is turning out to be.
So how long before Microsoft copies this?
er.. i mean....
Who should we complain to in the KDE team about being slow and lazy in adding this feature? My Toshiba running FBSD hasn't had any troubles with the battery! Those KDE folks are slow and lazy.
er... i mean....
Good job Apple.. Glad to see someone taking some responsibility.
This is not news...
In the days before duct tape, we were getting at LEAST that high from smoking cellophane and vinyl!
Cell phones will be able to take pictures, play music, capture and display video, surf the web, utilize VOIP, scan/fax/print/, and various other daily functions. They will also be the size of a small refrigerator and require a propane generator.
Somehow i first read the title as "Firefox Porno Videos"
Maybe it's time for lunch.....
Is the relationship between Apple and FreeBSD okay?
This is all 'friend of a friend says' sort of stuff, but word on the IRC channels is that Apple has been doing nothing but take-take-take. Some folks justify it by saying they've hired Hubbard full-time to work on FreeBSD (which i'm sure he finds as a happy arrangement).
There are other justifications, but to me it just seems like a number fo the Fbsd folks were enamoured with the attention they were getting from Apple, and had high hopes for a win-win situation that was mutually beneficial, but over the last few to several years it has been pretty one-sided.
If it is the way it's being reported to me, it's kinda sad, really.
His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
Instead, Longhorn will have a nifty lil pop-up that says:
"Windows has successfully installed a new Trojan Horse/Adserver. Before you can bein using this program
you must restart the computer. Would you like to restart the computer now?"
[Yes] [Ok]
It was right around that time that i downloaded Firefox onto a customer's machine that i'm removing parasites from. :-D
Glad to be part of it.
....and that's probably how it got stuck, but they could possibly rock it out like a car.
I've always wondered why they built it with wheels and not tracks though. Guess some of them are wondering the same thing now.
This sucks. Really.
First off, a disclaimer:
/. The rest of the Mac world is different.
All the Linux/OSX/Windows users will pull the "stodgy bsd user/you just want to seem l337" card. FWIW i've used fbsd for 1 year, linux for 7, windows for 3 and OSX for 2, and my opinion has been the same forever.
Just as someone noted early on, we need to make smarter users, not dumber computers. "Dumbing down" an OS, program or anything doesn't really make it more simple. It's just a facade over the real complexity underneath.
What's more, the user outgrows this crutch quickly, and then all the "simplification" stuff gets in their way from there on out.
Secondly, we don't need to introduce non-geeky people to geek-oriented OSes. They won't really get anything out of it, no differently than geeky people won't get anything out of a "user-friendly" os such as MacOS9 or Windows95.
Yeah, i know that there is OSX, which is claiming to "bridge the gap", but 99% of Mac users are actually using Aqua and all it's iStuff, not puttering around the underlying *BSD bits. Some folks here will pipe up and say they spend loads of time in the guts, sure, but this is the BSD section on
Thirdly, if something great comes of this, well... great. More power to them. But watch for the OSX zealots* to cry foul and say "It's just another PC-Folks ripping of the Mac-Folks thing" and "Copycat OSX/BSD for the PC!" and stuff.
Fourthly, though i will say that BSD is a much better foundation that Linux (for a lot of reasons) to base an OS on, I don't expect it to reach wide popularity, no differently than some of the more "user friendly" Linux distros (Lycoris, Lindows, et al).
* by "zealots", i mean the loud, vocal segment of Mac users that Just Don't Get It(tm), not ALL Mac users.
...at how much? 250 pounds, 300 pounds, 350 pounds? :D
disclaimer: i'm a fatass too.
It's a way to stop programs needing to distribute a redhat rpm and a suse rpm and a mandrake rpm and a debian deb and so on, instead you just make a lsb rpm which works on any lsb distro.
Source code works for this too.
A number of things that make up the LSB have been in dispute as to whether they're the best way to do something or not. The one that comes immediately to mind is RPM-based package management. -I- prefer APT or compiling directly from source, but there are a dozen different ways to do it and they've all got their merits and pitfalls.
These are Holy Wars, they'll never be solved, and they'll keep certain people from using an LSB system alone. (here it comes:)
"Oh, but then you just install XYZ and you can do it your way."
So you start with an LSB system, then install all these other apps and utils to bend it to your will. Now, ask yourself how different that is from what we've got now with all the 750 fragmented Linux distros?
There are other things that are harder to change, i.e. filesystem layout. Once again, it's a holy war. The community will *never* come to an agreement.
There is no "one size fits all" linux, and there never will be. Different people have different needs, and most linux users (well, or at least this used to be the case) have some extraordinary needs. That's why they use linux.
Most of the people who would want a standardized base like that probably use a BSD. This is not a criticism of anyone or any system, it's just an observation.
As more and more time goes on, and i get more and more involved with computer security, malicious software removal, et al, the less and less i'm taking Symantec seriously.
It's one thing to be a paranoiaware company that preys on ppl's insecurities and naivety.
It's yet ANOTHER thing to produce some of the biggest pieces of malware around.
Thirdly, there is a small but otherwise yet undefeated collection of evidence that Symantec themselves are a contributor of some of the more "harmless" internet worms.
All in a day's marketing, hey folks?