The reason for using identical lengths of speaker wire is not so the "electrons travel the same distance which improves the sound quality" and I doubt anyone has seriously used that as a reason. Matching wire lengths balances contributions that the wire itself makes among the channels. While it may be difficult to ever demonstrate that preamp cables can contribute to sound quality, it is very easy to demonstrate that speaker cables can (depending in your speakers and amplifier). Speakers are highly reactive devices with very low impedances, so speakers cables can easily contribute in audible and measurable ways.
Apple's not serious about unseating Windows. They can't do it and they know it. They must be content as a vertically integrated solutions company that snipes at MS from the peanut gallery.
What makes you think Sun engineers are qualified to do a game console or that they'd hang around to do it? Sun is successful today on the strength of their servers. Game machines couldn't be more different. Not that you game console idea is credible anyway.
docks are best placed on the left or right so that they take up less real estate (unless you have a portrait display). virtual desktops are great but large, high resolution monitors are even better. Why settle for a 1.6 MP display when you can use 4 or even 9 MP? Then, of course, there are multiple monitors.
Preferences are just that; there is no best way and it's arrogant for you to assume you know how productive programmers work. There are all kinds of effective programmers and environments, even the ones right out of the 80's that you describe.
Linus has a problem common among bright, productive programmers; if he hasn't personally invented it then it can't be of any use. Remember his position of version control systems? He simply is unable to learn from those who've gone before him. Don't expect a coherent argument from him on kernel debuggers until he sees fit to invent one himself.
Actually, I don't think (1) is a misconception at all. What started RMS on the free software kick in the first place was commercial exploitation of code that was developed in the labs be worked in. I'd say it isn't designed to prevent commercial use but definitely attempts to eliminate exploitation.
"If the GPL is viral, then commercial software development is a bloated cancer..."
If you say so. The GPL is viral though.
"GPL software is not viral, it simply exposes the sham of modern commercial software development. You are essentially claiming that the ability to find GPL software and integrate it into commercial projects harms you..."
No he didn't. He simply said that the result would be that the project would have to be GPL'ed.
"By not making your software GPL you are harming your customers by not using the best tools for the job and allowing them the freedom to change and modify the software they buy."
You're entitled to that opinion but there's no way you can defend it. Releasing under the GPL doesn't automatically make software "the best tools for the job" and the ability to modify software is often of no use whatsoever. On the other hand, there are many cases where the GPL restricts contributors from releasing their software at all.
"Not only that, but the existance of GPL software proves that most commercial software development and purchases are a waste of money."
Another absurd statement. Quite a bit of GPL software is, itself, commercially developed. Who do you think foots the bill for many of the most successful OSS projects?
"...the idea that software is simply a mathematical expression, easily derivable given the proper tools..."
That may be a good analogy if the claim was that cookies were fattening and cookie advocates responded with "They're not fattening unless you eat them".
"If you don't want to license your code under the GPL, all you have to do is write your own damn code."
The fact that MS doesn't release Windows under open source is not an argument for the GPL not being viral. I don't consider calling the GPL viral to be "radical", I consider it the plain truth. No other open source license has that restriction.
I believe his point is that the GPL is viral, which it is.
"It's been said already in this discussion, but it bears repetition: If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then don't."
Yes, it's been said a million times but it doesn't change the fact that the GPL is viral.
"Again, nobody's forcing you to use GPL'd code!"
No, but if you do they are forcing you to release under the GPL. That's the viral part.
Why do advocates get nasty when a spade is called a spade? The viral nature of the GPL is precisely what differentiates it from other open source licenses.
"Seriously, if you don't want to GPL your application, just don't use any GPL code in it. Why is that so hard?"
It's not hard but it has no effect on whether the license is viral or not. In fact, it's an acknowledgement.
"You're not going to lose the rights to your software if you invoke GPL code with it."
Not so. If that were the case, a programmer could work around the GPL buy cleverly building his application. The FSF argues, and I can't agree, that the mere inclusion of GPL'ed header files constitutes a derivative work. How are you going to call GPL'ed code without using headers to define the interfaces?
if the goal is low power i'd prefer to use more than 4 drives in the system. half the power budget is the motherboard, so an 8 drive chassis would result in a 25% reduction in power for larger installations. Clearly the focus here isn't on performance after all.
If all I wanted was 4 drives why would I care? Why would I want a 1U rack? Why wouldn't I just stick them in my PC?
"It is interesting that Apple do not do this, they don't even have separate "upgrade" prices. If you want the latest version of their OS or basic software (iWorks or iLife), then you pay one price. As a customer I like that."
Apple does have two versions of OS X and they sell iLife versions seperately as well. Considering their market share, that's probably all they can justify. I see no point in MS having so many versions of Windows but it would be amazingly absurd if Apple did that.
Since Apple brags about bundling their iLife suite, why isn't it bundled in OS X? Every mac gets one of each, so the only logical explanation is that they want to hit their customers for multiple upgrades. As a customer I don't like that.
Hmmm, and filesystems can require applications in order to function as well. Linux is a great example of an OS that requires applications in order to function at all (are there any that don't?). Are those applications not part of the OS? How useful would Linux be if it couldn't boot? Is a daemon an application or an OS service? It is both.
One man's absolute bullshit is another's unix-like operating system.
"Grandparent claims the GUI is part of an operating system. I claim I can have an operating system without a GUI -- not only can I run the GUI as a separate application, but I can still do plenty of useful things with the GUI disabled."
You can have a an OS without a memory manager as well and you can do useful things with it.
The GUI can be considered part of the management of specific hardware resources---specifically mouse, kbd, and display. Whether a GUI is launched as a separate app is beside the point. Without some means of interfacing to a computer it would be difficult to do anything with it, yet every means of accomplishing that under Unix is through an application. So what?
"And what's DOS, then? It doesn't even do multiplexing..."
DOS is an operating system and it does do "multiplexing". (why is that word used?) It doesn't do preemptive multitasking (it did do horrible cooperative multitasking) but then MacOS versions prior to 10 didn't either. Is DOS less of an OS that MacOS (pre 10) because it lacked a GUI? Neither had virtual memory or true multitasking. Early MacOS was DOS with a pretty GUI.
"Maybe I should clarify: Grandparent was claiming an OS is the environment, and they seemed to be referring to a programming environment. I'm suggesting that if any of this is true, then Java, as it is used on modern OSes, is itself an OS -- it is a self-contained programming environment. So is a web browser, by the way."
You could make a strong argument that the JRE is an OS. It's a pseudomachine after all. I don't think the same argument would be as strong for a web browser but it could be made. Just because an OS runs on top of another OS doesn't make it "not an OS".
There have been distributions where the desktop was the web browser and all apps were fancy "dashboard widgets". For those systems, the web browser absolutely was part of the OS. Depending on your perspective, it's valid to consider the OS as the collection of interfaces that apps use in order to run.
"We could try to redefine OS to fit anything we like, but I think we can all agree that a web browser is not, in itself, and operating system."
It seems the argument is over the definition, not redefinition. You are implying there is already an accepted definition that someone else is trying to change.
While most, maybe all, would agree that a web browser isn't an OS or even part of an OS, you will never get agreement that the GUI is simply an application. Not all OSes have the same feature set but most include management of a console and many systems for the last 2 decades or more have only provided a GUI for that function.
"If you can't even find the Magsafe one funny though (the most strightforward and accurate of the whole set of ads)..."
Except that not all macs have such a connector. I personally think it's a nice touch for notebooks but not an especially important feature. The only person i've ever known that's had a problem with their notebook power connector owns a powerbook. I generally don't route my power cord so that it can be tripped over.
So apparently what makes a mac "fucking" "what it is" is target disk mode. Hmmm.
"It's an integrated platform, and to force it into components like it were a beige-box PC sort of misses the point, I think."
What exactly do you think is the point? I think the point is that Apple wants you to think that they offer a superior computer that superior people buy. Apple knows from experience that they can't survive strictly as a software or hardware company. Either Microsoft or Dell would put them under.
"USB can be plugged in and unplugged while the machine is running. PS/2 cannot."
That is true. It's also of little value to mice and keyboards.
"USB can be chained. PS/2 cannot."
True but of no value to mice and keyboards.
"USB can be used for higher speed connections to cameras, and the like. PS/2 cannot."
Irrelevant to mice and keyboards.
"As for every non-server having a P/2 port, they take up space that could be used for other ports and they take up more space than USB ports which can provide greater functionality."
A mouse and a keyboard require two ports regardless of the connector type and PS/2 connectors do not take more space than USB ones. Your argument here is simply wrong. The sole value of using USB for a keyboard is that it can include a USB hub for the mouse.
Some PC's, notably notebooks, mutliplex the mouse and keyboard connectors on the same plug. A user can use a mouse or a keyboard and have it work or use a splitter and connect both. Space is not an argument for dropping PS/2. Simplification of port types is.
The difference between a two piece computer and a three piece is the connection of the monitor. Surely you aren't arguing that macs are innovative in that regard?
Basically all PC's support USB keyboards and mice. Connectors are color coded and audio connectors are the same for macs and PCs. There are two piece PCs as well for those who value that. I don't think setting up a machine is as difficult as you make it out to be.
Except that much of the targetted criticism of PCs (viruses, crashing, etc) is obviously Windows-specific. From a typical user's standpoint, PC and Windows are the same thing and I really don't get what your point is. Why would Apple refer to its competitor by name when it doesn't have to? It's always best to not give your competitor's name airplay at your expense.
Now, if what you're saying is that the PC Apple refers to may well run Linux or BSD, then their claim that PCs are vulnerable to viruses is an outright lie.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for using identical lengths of speaker wire is not so the "electrons travel the same distance which improves the sound quality" and I doubt anyone has seriously used that as a reason. Matching wire lengths balances contributions that the wire itself makes among the channels. While it may be difficult to ever demonstrate that preamp cables can contribute to sound quality, it is very easy to demonstrate that speaker cables can (depending in your speakers and amplifier). Speakers are highly reactive devices with very low impedances, so speakers cables can easily contribute in audible and measurable ways.
Instead of acres of land, how about airline seats? Oh yeah, the do oversell those.
Apple's not serious about unseating Windows. They can't do it and they know it. They must be content as a vertically integrated solutions company that snipes at MS from the peanut gallery.
What makes you think Sun engineers are qualified to do a game console or that they'd hang around to do it? Sun is successful today on the strength of their servers. Game machines couldn't be more different. Not that you game console idea is credible anyway.
"Microsoft thinks that a mandatory start-up beep is a buzz worthy feature..."
You mean like Apple's start-up beep?
"...yet any sort of alliance between a competitor and the world's most popular search engine isn't news?"
It's not an alliance.
"With attitudes like that, I just want M$ to go the way of the Dell laptop a bit more."
You mean like Apple laptops?
"real hackers" use gnome? haha
docks are best placed on the left or right so that they take up less real estate (unless you have a portrait display). virtual desktops are great but large, high resolution monitors are even better. Why settle for a 1.6 MP display when you can use 4 or even 9 MP? Then, of course, there are multiple monitors.
Preferences are just that; there is no best way and it's arrogant for you to assume you know how productive programmers work. There are all kinds of effective programmers and environments, even the ones right out of the 80's that you describe.
Only a fool likes GIMP.
Linus has a problem common among bright, productive programmers; if he hasn't personally invented it then it can't be of any use. Remember his position of version control systems? He simply is unable to learn from those who've gone before him. Don't expect a coherent argument from him on kernel debuggers until he sees fit to invent one himself.
Actually, I don't think (1) is a misconception at all. What started RMS on the free software kick in the first place was commercial exploitation of code that was developed in the labs be worked in. I'd say it isn't designed to prevent commercial use but definitely attempts to eliminate exploitation.
"If the GPL is viral, then commercial software development is a bloated cancer..."
If you say so. The GPL is viral though.
"GPL software is not viral, it simply exposes the sham of modern commercial software development. You are essentially claiming that the ability to find GPL software and integrate it into commercial projects harms you..."
No he didn't. He simply said that the result would be that the project would have to be GPL'ed.
"By not making your software GPL you are harming your customers by not using the best tools for the job and allowing them the freedom to change and modify the software they buy."
You're entitled to that opinion but there's no way you can defend it. Releasing under the GPL doesn't automatically make software "the best tools for the job" and the ability to modify software is often of no use whatsoever. On the other hand, there are many cases where the GPL restricts contributors from releasing their software at all.
"Not only that, but the existance of GPL software proves that most commercial software development and purchases are a waste of money."
Another absurd statement. Quite a bit of GPL software is, itself, commercially developed. Who do you think foots the bill for many of the most successful OSS projects?
"...the idea that software is simply a mathematical expression, easily derivable given the proper tools..."
You aren't a programmer obviously.
That may be a good analogy if the claim was that cookies were fattening and cookie advocates responded with "They're not fattening unless you eat them".
"If you don't want to license your code under the GPL, all you have to do is write your own damn code."
Yet another admission that the GPL is viral.
The fact that MS doesn't release Windows under open source is not an argument for the GPL not being viral. I don't consider calling the GPL viral to be "radical", I consider it the plain truth. No other open source license has that restriction.
Not true. If you use a line of code released under any other open source license (or in the public domain) you don't have the same issues.
Once again, the response doesn't refute the fact that the GPL is viral.
"You're correct. What's your point?"
I believe his point is that the GPL is viral, which it is.
"It's been said already in this discussion, but it bears repetition: If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then don't."
Yes, it's been said a million times but it doesn't change the fact that the GPL is viral.
"Again, nobody's forcing you to use GPL'd code!"
No, but if you do they are forcing you to release under the GPL. That's the viral part.
Why do advocates get nasty when a spade is called a spade? The viral nature of the GPL is precisely what differentiates it from other open source licenses.
"Seriously, if you don't want to GPL your application, just don't use any GPL code in it. Why is that so hard?"
It's not hard but it has no effect on whether the license is viral or not. In fact, it's an acknowledgement.
"You're not going to lose the rights to your software if you invoke GPL code with it."
Not so. If that were the case, a programmer could work around the GPL buy cleverly building his application. The FSF argues, and I can't agree, that the mere inclusion of GPL'ed header files constitutes a derivative work. How are you going to call GPL'ed code without using headers to define the interfaces?
and you might want to learn more about threads.
if the goal is low power i'd prefer to use more than 4 drives in the system. half the power budget is the motherboard, so an 8 drive chassis would result in a 25% reduction in power for larger installations. Clearly the focus here isn't on performance after all.
If all I wanted was 4 drives why would I care? Why would I want a 1U rack? Why wouldn't I just stick them in my PC?
"It is interesting that Apple do not do this, they don't even have separate "upgrade" prices. If you want the latest version of their OS or basic software (iWorks or iLife), then you pay one price. As a customer I like that."
Apple does have two versions of OS X and they sell iLife versions seperately as well. Considering their market share, that's probably all they can justify. I see no point in MS having so many versions of Windows but it would be amazingly absurd if Apple did that.
Since Apple brags about bundling their iLife suite, why isn't it bundled in OS X? Every mac gets one of each, so the only logical explanation is that they want to hit their customers for multiple upgrades. As a customer I don't like that.
Hmmm, and filesystems can require applications in order to function as well. Linux is a great example of an OS that requires applications in order to function at all (are there any that don't?). Are those applications not part of the OS? How useful would Linux be if it couldn't boot? Is a daemon an application or an OS service? It is both.
One man's absolute bullshit is another's unix-like operating system.
"Grandparent claims the GUI is part of an operating system. I claim I can have an operating system without a GUI -- not only can I run the GUI as a separate application, but I can still do plenty of useful things with the GUI disabled."
You can have a an OS without a memory manager as well and you can do useful things with it.
The GUI can be considered part of the management of specific hardware resources---specifically mouse, kbd, and display. Whether a GUI is launched as a separate app is beside the point. Without some means of interfacing to a computer it would be difficult to do anything with it, yet every means of accomplishing that under Unix is through an application. So what?
"And what's DOS, then? It doesn't even do multiplexing..."
DOS is an operating system and it does do "multiplexing". (why is that word used?) It doesn't do preemptive multitasking (it did do horrible cooperative multitasking) but then MacOS versions prior to 10 didn't either. Is DOS less of an OS that MacOS (pre 10) because it lacked a GUI? Neither had virtual memory or true multitasking. Early MacOS was DOS with a pretty GUI.
"Maybe I should clarify: Grandparent was claiming an OS is the environment, and they seemed to be referring to a programming environment. I'm suggesting that if any of this is true, then Java, as it is used on modern OSes, is itself an OS -- it is a self-contained programming environment. So is a web browser, by the way."
You could make a strong argument that the JRE is an OS. It's a pseudomachine after all. I don't think the same argument would be as strong for a web browser but it could be made. Just because an OS runs on top of another OS doesn't make it "not an OS".
There have been distributions where the desktop was the web browser and all apps were fancy "dashboard widgets". For those systems, the web browser absolutely was part of the OS. Depending on your perspective, it's valid to consider the OS as the collection of interfaces that apps use in order to run.
"We could try to redefine OS to fit anything we like, but I think we can all agree that a web browser is not, in itself, and operating system."
It seems the argument is over the definition, not redefinition. You are implying there is already an accepted definition that someone else is trying to change.
While most, maybe all, would agree that a web browser isn't an OS or even part of an OS, you will never get agreement that the GUI is simply an application. Not all OSes have the same feature set but most include management of a console and many systems for the last 2 decades or more have only provided a GUI for that function.
"...whenever typical Windows problems (which you seem to deny) are mentioned."
Where did he deny that? Why is it that mac people have to put words in people's mouths in order to have something to argue against?
"Who has a Windows computer that inexplicably freezes now and then? Yes, who?"
I have macs that do that too.
"If you can't even find the Magsafe one funny though (the most strightforward and accurate of the whole set of ads)..."
Except that not all macs have such a connector. I personally think it's a nice touch for notebooks but not an especially important feature. The only person i've ever known that's had a problem with their notebook power connector owns a powerbook. I generally don't route my power cord so that it can be tripped over.
startup chime? flashing disk? fantastic!!!
command key? backlit keyboard? got those.
magnetic power connector? not on any mac desktop.
So apparently what makes a mac "fucking" "what it is" is target disk mode. Hmmm.
"It's an integrated platform, and to force it into components like it were a beige-box PC sort of misses the point, I think."
What exactly do you think is the point? I think the point is that Apple wants you to think that they offer a superior computer that superior people buy. Apple knows from experience that they can't survive strictly as a software or hardware company. Either Microsoft or Dell would put them under.
"develop an operating system and a multitude of other software apps that are highly regarded by just about everyone"
just about everyone" really? I guess your source for that is Apple.
"USB can be plugged in and unplugged while the machine is running. PS/2 cannot."
That is true. It's also of little value to mice and keyboards.
"USB can be chained. PS/2 cannot."
True but of no value to mice and keyboards.
"USB can be used for higher speed connections to cameras, and the like. PS/2 cannot."
Irrelevant to mice and keyboards.
"As for every non-server having a P/2 port, they take up space that could be used for other ports and they take up more space than USB ports which can provide greater functionality."
A mouse and a keyboard require two ports regardless of the connector type and PS/2 connectors do not take more space than USB ones. Your argument here is simply wrong. The sole value of using USB for a keyboard is that it can include a USB hub for the mouse.
Some PC's, notably notebooks, mutliplex the mouse and keyboard connectors on the same plug. A user can use a mouse or a keyboard and have it work or use a splitter and connect both. Space is not an argument for dropping PS/2. Simplification of port types is.
What about a Powermac, then?
The difference between a two piece computer and a three piece is the connection of the monitor. Surely you aren't arguing that macs are innovative in that regard?
Basically all PC's support USB keyboards and mice. Connectors are color coded and audio connectors are the same for macs and PCs. There are two piece PCs as well for those who value that. I don't think setting up a machine is as difficult as you make it out to be.
Except that much of the targetted criticism of PCs (viruses, crashing, etc) is obviously Windows-specific. From a typical user's standpoint, PC and Windows are the same thing and I really don't get what your point is. Why would Apple refer to its competitor by name when it doesn't have to? It's always best to not give your competitor's name airplay at your expense.
Now, if what you're saying is that the PC Apple refers to may well run Linux or BSD, then their claim that PCs are vulnerable to viruses is an outright lie.