Re:i dissed them for lousy linux support on news.c
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
"they have terrible or no support for most architectures/OSes out there"
Most as in the number you can count on your hand, or most as in percentage of the market covered? By your count, Windows would count the same as a Commadore 64.
There is no reason for a company to spend money on a product that generates no income or benefit of any kind. If you want to use a fringe computing platform, go ahead but don't complain when it's unsupported. Web developers are free to ignore you when you represent an immeasurable portion of the market.
How well do AJAX applications run in browsers with javascript disabled? How well does AJAX support cross-platform video?
"And if the hardware won't function without my software, why can't I do that? Either use my software according to my rules, or write your own software."
Of course you can do that. What you can't do is license your software such that it allows me to use it then complain when I do. The GPLv2 is just that.
"Then, why did they make a special Linux version, the WRT54GL, after they changed the WRT54G to VxWorks?"
I forgot about that, and it appears to be a rare example of a product intended to allow mods. I use the VxWorks one. I prefer a device that works without requiring mods.
"I don't care about the design of your hardware except that it may not be used to limit the rights of users of my software."
Then don't buy it and don't license your software to me. The GPLv2 license grants me that right so you should choose something else. Your GPL'ed work did not contribute to my hardware design and it does not govern the use of that work.
"Deny all you want, but don't expect my computer to obey you. Either it plays and allows everything (no DRM on media), or it don't allow anything at all (DRM on media, but no DRM in my computer). I won't allow my computer to selectively allow certain actions and deny others based on your decisions. If this means that I cannot buy your songs or your movies, it's your loss. I'll live without them."
I think you're getting emotional. I'm not a content provider, I'm just openminded. You seem to feel that it is your right to make decisions regarding your computing platform (it is) and the software you author (also true), but also how others use software licensed to them (you aren't) and how commercial entities will do business with you (ain't so). Everyone else's freedom to choose is intact as well, and maybe it's time you understand that. Your rights don't include violating the rights of others.
I am not an advocate of drm but I totally understand why it exists. Just as you doggedly defend your right to dictate how software you author gets used, contect creators wish to do the same. Your tool is the GPL which you and the FSF would like to sharpen now that it's not enough. Content providers will use drm whether you like it or not. They have no other business model.
Frankly, I want the battle to play out between Fair Use and DRM and I want DRM to lose. I want the business model to change and I want technology to benefit the users. What I don't want is for the free software community to turn the guns on itself by making its licenses increasing restrictive.
Vendors use GPL'ed software in proprietary products because it offers some advantage they don't otherwise have and rarely is hackability their goal. If GPL'ed software becomes universally unavailable, the result will be fewer products at a slower pace with higher prices. Non-GPL'ed free software could very well rush in to fill the gap. Make the GPL sufficiently unattractive to use and it will get dropped and replaced. Linux, for example, isn't so good that it's irreplacable.
Our need to out computing platforms open is essential but so is the need to maintain incentives for creativity. These issues are colliding headon and radical positions such as yours are not helpful, so take your extreme positions if you like and prepare to be marginalized.
Haha yeah. We all know that the Apple II, with it's stunning color graphics, drove IBM to improve it's capability beyong the CGA. That MUST have been what he meant.
Give it a rest. Apple was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the color world. Every current computing platform at the time had color graphics before the mac finally got it.
It was an asskicking from a hardware perspective. The Amiga was a commercial failure for other reasons, much like the Lisa was. It was vastly ahead of the mac in both hardware and software capability and it continues to have a (misguided) fanbase today. While Apple lovers seem to think that desktop video was invented on the mac, the reality was that the Amiga did it first.
Sure, everyone wants a media PC with no TV tuner capability or local storage. We know that because that's how all the media pc's are being bought today.
The fact that you defend this point of view is only because it's necessary to justify the use of a mini in that environment. The typical home user will not prefer to use networked storage and a naiive user won't understand how that works anyway. A media pc is expected to have DVR functions and adequate local storage. A mini is a poor choice for that.
Apple is not positioned to put a PC in the living room connected to your TV set. It not only doesn't have a box that's suitable for the task, it doesn't have the software that's required. MCE, as disappointing as it is, is far ahead of Frontrow and Apple will need to offer better DVR functionality and add the ability to play as many video formats as it can. Right now you can only do that on the mac with VLC and MS drm'ed formats are locked out. Don't hold your breath waiting for Apple to catch up with MS there.
If Apple offered a slim, media component-styled mac with a merom, one or two 3.5" drives, TV tuner and cablecard capability you guys would be crapping all over yourselves with glee. The mini is NOT a media pc contender.
Right, with the mini's copious high-performance disk capacity and expandability.
Nothing like trumpeting the mini's superiority based on its size only to have to add two or more external boxes to enable media pc functionality.
How's OS X gonna play WM10 drm'ed files? It's not, but MCE can play the QT ones. Sorry, but the mini just ain't it for a media pc. Until the mac can play all available content AND offer a machine with suitable capacity / capability that is quiet and appropriate for the living room, Apple is out of the game.
bullshit. Macs were dogged by monochrome displays until the Amiga came along and started kicking its ass. Meanwhile IBM marched on with the EGA and then the VGA and XGA. At least IBM offered color with the CGA and anyone who needed high res graphics bought a Hercules card. Mac's 9" display meanwhile was a total joke.
PC's were business machines and macs didn't play in that market. The mac's actual graphics hardware was crappy compared to the PC and macs had no influence anyway.
Don't care. Neither is shipping so you can't use it to solve your imaginary photoshop dilemma as you claim you could.
File versioning is a capability MS has already announced in Vista and did so before Apple announced Time Machine. They may be able to demonstrate that functionality or they may not. I'm not familiar with the betas they've released so I can't say and really don't care. I have no personal stake in the MS vs. Apple feud that drives so many mac fanboys.
You have yet to explain how you can solve your PS problem with software that isn't available or explain why on earth you'd want to do it to begin with. The closest you could come to that today is through Linux, versioning capable file systems, and WINE.
If you delete and purge a file in OS X it's gone too. So what if that file is saved as a difference from a previous version, it's the same thing. VMS didn't delete all versions when a file was deleted so recovering the previous version was still possible. OS X will be no different.
NetApp, by virtue of it's FS implementation, will save only differences to a file between versions. Granularity will be a block, not a byte, but the entire file will not be duplicated. Their implementation is very efficient, something I suspect Apple's may not be if they do it in the manner you suggest (as a VCS might do it).
"RCS goes back to the 1980s, and it probably has a stronger claim to prior art on Time Machine than VMS versioning."
Says you, but that's not the point.
"I don't think anyone (outside of Apple marketing circles) has claimed that it's revolutionary..."
I disagree. A lot of people here seem to feel that way.
I'm not saying it isn't interesting, I'm undecided on that. I'm just saying it's a well-worn technology with a lot of history and prior art.
VMS isn't the only system that offers it. Vista lists it as a feature and Leopard isn't shipping yet. Linux has versioning FS's and NetApp does versioning. It's not new. Oh yeah, it's new to a computer that you can buy "in a mall".
"Guess I'm stuck with a Mac" except mac doesn't do it yet either.
Of course, I'm not sure I want versioning on PS documents. There are better ways to skin that cat. PS has deep undo's, non-destructive layers and autosave. PS produces very large files and I doubt I want OS X, which is already slower than molasses, to get bogged down with endless incremental PS file backups.
"Good lord, what a whiny ass titty baby you are." Good to see mac lovers displaying their usual class.
KDE/Gnome counts for a surprising fraction when you compare it to OS X's fraction.
"Apple merely takes great technology and makes it usable", "Apple polish", "much cooler addition" --- just a bunch of nebulous, subjective opinions supporting the idea that Apple is somehow inherently better than everyone else.
"A versioning file system on a computer you can buy at the mall is something new. So are virtual desktops."
I guess, but only because you're buying it at "the mall". Sad that you have to get that specific before you have a point.
It's just galls mac fans to find out that Apple hasn't really invented something new.
BTW, file versioning and virtual desktops can be had on any linux system today, even ones that run on a mac. No, you can't buy that ready-to-run at a mall. So what? You can buy Sony PC's at a mall.
"VMS versioning was a "never overwrite" system, not a real versioning system as we understand the term today. Time Machine fuses the concept of a modern versioning system with automated backup and recovery. I've been doing something similar to Time Machine on my Mac Powerbook, using CVS to make remote backups of certain working directories to a server, which lets me recover not only by date, but also recover deleted files (which VMS versioning does not, or at least did not in the early 90s, last I used it). Time Machine promises to make this slicker because it autocommits (no more losing intermediate versions between commits), and makes rollbacks a lot easier."
In what way was VMS's impementation not modern? Who are the "we" in "we understand"? How is Time Machine more modern in versioning than VMS? Why can't VMS recover a deleted file (unless you forcably delete all versions)? It's my 20+ year old recollection that you had to tell VMS specifically to delete all versions of a file.
Clearly, file versioning has been around long enough to have a page that describes it. In what way is Apple doing versioning that hasn't been done before? NetApp implements snapshots using versioning and there are others doing it besides the old VMS stuff.
haha if something turns out not to be new or innovative then through some bullshit words at it. who says time machine will be usable for the masses or that it's the first time such has happened? Those are entirely subjective judgements on a product that doesn't exist. As for "paradigm shift" what the hell are you talking about?
While I agree that the charges are frequently outrageous, there is routing and storage while in transit. Sending and receiving using the existing data packets is just one part.
That said I get unlimited SMS for a reasonable fee.
Slashdot Mirror
"they have terrible or no support for most architectures/OSes out there"
Most as in the number you can count on your hand, or most as in percentage of the market covered? By your count, Windows would count the same as a Commadore 64.
There is no reason for a company to spend money on a product that generates no income or benefit of any kind. If you want to use a fringe computing platform, go ahead but don't complain when it's unsupported. Web developers are free to ignore you when you represent an immeasurable portion of the market.
How well do AJAX applications run in browsers with javascript disabled? How well does AJAX support cross-platform video?
"And if the hardware won't function without my software, why can't I do that? Either use my software according to my rules, or write your own software."
Of course you can do that. What you can't do is license your software such that it allows me to use it then complain when I do. The GPLv2 is just that.
"Then, why did they make a special Linux version, the WRT54GL, after they changed the WRT54G to VxWorks?"
I forgot about that, and it appears to be a rare example of a product intended to allow mods. I use the VxWorks one. I prefer a device that works without requiring mods.
"I don't care about the design of your hardware except that it may not be used to limit the rights of users of my software."
Then don't buy it and don't license your software to me. The GPLv2 license grants me that right so you should choose something else. Your GPL'ed work did not contribute to my hardware design and it does not govern the use of that work.
"Deny all you want, but don't expect my computer to obey you. Either it plays and allows everything (no DRM on media), or it don't allow anything at all (DRM on media, but no DRM in my computer). I won't allow my computer to selectively allow certain actions and deny others based on your decisions. If this means that I cannot buy your songs or your movies, it's your loss. I'll live without them."
I think you're getting emotional. I'm not a content provider, I'm just openminded. You seem to feel that it is your right to make decisions regarding your computing platform (it is) and the software you author (also true), but also how others use software licensed to them (you aren't) and how commercial entities will do business with you (ain't so). Everyone else's freedom to choose is intact as well, and maybe it's time you understand that. Your rights don't include violating the rights of others.
I am not an advocate of drm but I totally understand why it exists. Just as you doggedly defend your right to dictate how software you author gets used, contect creators wish to do the same. Your tool is the GPL which you and the FSF would like to sharpen now that it's not enough. Content providers will use drm whether you like it or not. They have no other business model.
Frankly, I want the battle to play out between Fair Use and DRM and I want DRM to lose. I want the business model to change and I want technology to benefit the users. What I don't want is for the free software community to turn the guns on itself by making its licenses increasing restrictive.
Vendors use GPL'ed software in proprietary products because it offers some advantage they don't otherwise have and rarely is hackability their goal. If GPL'ed software becomes universally unavailable, the result will be fewer products at a slower pace with higher prices. Non-GPL'ed free software could very well rush in to fill the gap. Make the GPL sufficiently unattractive to use and it will get dropped and replaced. Linux, for example, isn't so good that it's irreplacable.
Our need to out computing platforms open is essential but so is the need to maintain incentives for creativity. These issues are colliding headon and radical positions such as yours are not helpful, so take your extreme positions if you like and prepare to be marginalized.
Haha yeah. We all know that the Apple II, with it's stunning color graphics, drove IBM to improve it's capability beyong the CGA. That MUST have been what he meant.
Give it a rest. Apple was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the color world. Every current computing platform at the time had color graphics before the mac finally got it.
It was an asskicking from a hardware perspective. The Amiga was a commercial failure for other reasons, much like the Lisa was. It was vastly ahead of the mac in both hardware and software capability and it continues to have a (misguided) fanbase today. While Apple lovers seem to think that desktop video was invented on the mac, the reality was that the Amiga did it first.
Sure, everyone wants a media PC with no TV tuner capability or local storage. We know that because that's how all the media pc's are being bought today.
The fact that you defend this point of view is only because it's necessary to justify the use of a mini in that environment. The typical home user will not prefer to use networked storage and a naiive user won't understand how that works anyway. A media pc is expected to have DVR functions and adequate local storage. A mini is a poor choice for that.
Apple is not positioned to put a PC in the living room connected to your TV set. It not only doesn't have a box that's suitable for the task, it doesn't have the software that's required. MCE, as disappointing as it is, is far ahead of Frontrow and Apple will need to offer better DVR functionality and add the ability to play as many video formats as it can. Right now you can only do that on the mac with VLC and MS drm'ed formats are locked out. Don't hold your breath waiting for Apple to catch up with MS there.
If Apple offered a slim, media component-styled mac with a merom, one or two 3.5" drives, TV tuner and cablecard capability you guys would be crapping all over yourselves with glee. The mini is NOT a media pc contender.
Right, with the mini's copious high-performance disk capacity and expandability.
Nothing like trumpeting the mini's superiority based on its size only to have to add two or more external boxes to enable media pc functionality.
How's OS X gonna play WM10 drm'ed files? It's not, but MCE can play the QT ones. Sorry, but the mini just ain't it for a media pc. Until the mac can play all available content AND offer a machine with suitable capacity / capability that is quiet and appropriate for the living room, Apple is out of the game.
bullshit. Macs were dogged by monochrome displays until the Amiga came along and started kicking its ass. Meanwhile IBM marched on with the EGA and then the VGA and XGA. At least IBM offered color with the CGA and anyone who needed high res graphics bought a Hercules card. Mac's 9" display meanwhile was a total joke.
PC's were business machines and macs didn't play in that market. The mac's actual graphics hardware was crappy compared to the PC and macs had no influence anyway.
bullshit. that machine had no compatibility issues because it was Apple-only.
Don't care. Neither is shipping so you can't use it to solve your imaginary photoshop dilemma as you claim you could.
File versioning is a capability MS has already announced in Vista and did so before Apple announced Time Machine. They may be able to demonstrate that functionality or they may not. I'm not familiar with the betas they've released so I can't say and really don't care. I have no personal stake in the MS vs. Apple feud that drives so many mac fanboys.
You have yet to explain how you can solve your PS problem with software that isn't available or explain why on earth you'd want to do it to begin with. The closest you could come to that today is through Linux, versioning capable file systems, and WINE.
"If you delete/purge that file, it's gone."
If you delete and purge a file in OS X it's gone too. So what if that file is saved as a difference from a previous version, it's the same thing. VMS didn't delete all versions when a file was deleted so recovering the previous version was still possible. OS X will be no different.
NetApp, by virtue of it's FS implementation, will save only differences to a file between versions. Granularity will be a block, not a byte, but the entire file will not be duplicated. Their implementation is very efficient, something I suspect Apple's may not be if they do it in the manner you suggest (as a VCS might do it).
"RCS goes back to the 1980s, and it probably has a stronger claim to prior art on Time Machine than VMS versioning."
Says you, but that's not the point.
"I don't think anyone (outside of Apple marketing circles) has claimed that it's revolutionary..."
I disagree. A lot of people here seem to feel that way.
I'm not saying it isn't interesting, I'm undecided on that. I'm just saying it's a well-worn technology with a lot of history and prior art.
I agree. What makes you think i'm a linux fan?
I simply get tired of mac people thinking apple is the only one who innovates and that everything they do is original.
yahoo has some interesting features there.
"let us know how using VMS goes for you."
VMS isn't the only system that offers it. Vista lists it as a feature and Leopard isn't shipping yet. Linux has versioning FS's and NetApp does versioning. It's not new. Oh yeah, it's new to a computer that you can buy "in a mall".
"Guess I'm stuck with a Mac" except mac doesn't do it yet either.
Of course, I'm not sure I want versioning on PS documents. There are better ways to skin that cat. PS has deep undo's, non-destructive layers and autosave. PS produces very large files and I doubt I want OS X, which is already slower than molasses, to get bogged down with endless incremental PS file backups.
"Good lord, what a whiny ass titty baby you are." Good to see mac lovers displaying their usual class.
"Is it really so important to debate whether these features are all completely new and revolutionary?"
It is when the presenter makes snide remarks about how another company is always stealing his ideas. Jobs is a hypocrite.
"they'll be set up in a simple and intuitive way for the average Mac user"
perhaps
"Isn't that something?"
could be
"Apple isn't always about doing something new."
No, they're just about claiming it.
KDE/Gnome counts for a surprising fraction when you compare it to OS X's fraction.
"Apple merely takes great technology and makes it usable", "Apple polish", "much cooler addition" --- just a bunch of nebulous, subjective opinions supporting the idea that Apple is somehow inherently better than everyone else.
"A versioning file system on a computer you can buy at the mall is something new. So are virtual desktops."
I guess, but only because you're buying it at "the mall". Sad that you have to get that specific before you have a point.
It's just galls mac fans to find out that Apple hasn't really invented something new.
BTW, file versioning and virtual desktops can be had on any linux system today, even ones that run on a mac. No, you can't buy that ready-to-run at a mall. So what? You can buy Sony PC's at a mall.
"VMS versioning was a "never overwrite" system, not a real versioning system as we understand the term today. Time Machine fuses the concept of a modern versioning system with automated backup and recovery. I've been doing something similar to Time Machine on my Mac Powerbook, using CVS to make remote backups of certain working directories to a server, which lets me recover not only by date, but also recover deleted files (which VMS versioning does not, or at least did not in the early 90s, last I used it). Time Machine promises to make this slicker because it autocommits (no more losing intermediate versions between commits), and makes rollbacks a lot easier."
e m
In what way was VMS's impementation not modern? Who are the "we" in "we understand"? How is Time Machine more modern in versioning than VMS? Why can't VMS recover a deleted file (unless you forcably delete all versions)? It's my 20+ year old recollection that you had to tell VMS specifically to delete all versions of a file.
Honestly I don't get anything you said, but here's an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_syst
Clearly, file versioning has been around long enough to have a page that describes it. In what way is Apple doing versioning that hasn't been done before? NetApp implements snapshots using versioning and there are others doing it besides the old VMS stuff.
haha if something turns out not to be new or innovative then through some bullshit words at it. who says time machine will be usable for the masses or that it's the first time such has happened? Those are entirely subjective judgements on a product that doesn't exist. As for "paradigm shift" what the hell are you talking about?
Very special "indeed"
especially if your father is a narrow-minded as you
on versioning file systems, here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_syste m
very old idea and there are products today that do it. thank God we have Apple to invent it again for the very first time!
...and VMS from the 70's. Filesystems have had file versioning for many decades. You are WAY off.
"Being able to show photos to people over an iChat chat is great."
Haha what? Didn't realize iChat was so far behind.
"Oh really? Do you remember when Outlook came free with every Windows computer?"
Oh, so Apple is innovative because they were the first to think of adding this feature to a *bundled* mail app?
Thank God we have Apple to invent everything.
While I agree that the charges are frequently outrageous, there is routing and storage while in transit. Sending and receiving using the existing data packets is just one part.
That said I get unlimited SMS for a reasonable fee.
I might of said "I love text messaging" but your version will do. Well put.