"That, IMHO, makes a bit more sense than curving it from side to side..."
Except after you think about it. A phone curved that way doesn't travel as well, doesn't lay flat, and isn't well suited to being used in landscape. It's OK to hold in your hand and worse otherwise (which is most of the time). The single argument in its favor, that the microphone is closer, is contrived. That doesn't matter at all.
And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple. What "nagged" Jobs was not the stealing, it was that it was not him doing the stealing. After all, iOS itself was mostly unoriginal theft from other smartphone makers.
All this is is another example of Jobs' unbounded ego.
Mac had the worst SCSI implementation ever devised, had proprietary SCSI connectors, had the worst networking in the market, and had CPUs that lacked memory management hardware. Meanwhile, those 286's had complete protected memory subsystems. You are mistaken...what a surprise.
Apple was famous for their cheapness and that "hardware that could support GUIs" was a 9" monochrome monitor with terrible resolution. PC's had better than that from the start.
IBM PCs were more expensive than Macs in the beginning and were vastly more premium in build. Apparently you weren't born yet.
"...and Mac fans used to scream loudly (and rightly) how the IBM chips beat Intel on real-world benchmarks while Intel touted their higher speed."
Mac fans used to scream loudly about anything that made Macs look good...and still do. It's called tribalism and it isn't about being "right", it's about being on the winning team.
Apple only used an IBM "chip" once. It's clear you don't know that so it's no surprise you don't know how "rightly" Mac fans were about their screaming either. G5's were, in the balance, not faster than their Intel contemporaries. Better at some things and worse at others. One thing was clear with the G5 and it was that Apple was switching to Intel afterward.
If you asked any "Mac fan" back in the day you'd get explained to you just how superior every generation of PowerPC Mac was to any PC ever. It's surprising then, just how much better Macs got once they switched to a real processor. Macs today ARE PCs in every way yet those Mac fans still have that feeling of smug superiority. They are inherently right always, Steve told them so, they just aren't well informed.
Dell was not asked what he'd do to fix Apple, he was asked what he'd do if he were CEO of Apple. Big difference. Dell responded that he would be a poor choice for CEO. Naturally, you don't remember this or care to know any differently. It would put a dent in the smugness.
Nice to see all the "Interesting" comments on a Dell topic involving Apple. Par for the course.
If you read the original interview, you would know better than to say this. Dell never "predicted" anything to be "right" about. Dell said he would return the money to stockholders as an example of why he would be a poor choice to lead the company. The rest is a bunch of fanboys jacking off over it.
No surprise to see this inflammatory and grossly misleading article quoted here, from the usual suspect of course. SuperKendall is incapable of anything else.
"Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?"
Not just nowadays.
Democratic moderation, in all its forms, only furthers tribalism. It exists due to laziness and the desire to play to people's egos. It is rarely used as "intended".
"TeX is horrible in the sense that it's a glorified macro processor state machine..."...and it shares this trait with every other system intended to be compiled.
Of course, there's the TeX engine and the default macro packages which are different things. Different front ends could have different behaviors. You are not bound to plain TeX or LaTeX or a few others, write your own. You obviously feel confident of your expertise.
"Remind me, why do we have computers again? To automate stuff? I thought so."
Apparently you need to be reminded. TeX is a system for "automating stuff", not a system for interactively enabling tweaks by hand. The problem you cite comes from your desire to do stupid things.
"Unfortunately there's a lot of old code that doesn't do this..."
Nice implication that this is a standard rather than a preference. A lot of new code "doesn't do this" either because a lot of people don't feel like you do, myself included.
Writing expressions backwards hampers the readability of code and only theoretically catches problems. I can count on one hand the times in my career I've suffered this particular fate and I'm not going to pay a price every day for a structural "solution" to a problem I don't have. I've been working with programmers that do this for 20 years and have never found it to be anything but a nuisance. If it works for them, fine, but it doesn't go into my work. I'm not weak but if you are then by all means, use your crutch.
Sometimes the answer is be better at what you do. Once upon a time you could declare a local variable in a switch statement without explicitly limiting scope. Now you must incur the wrath of the nanny compiler or pollute your code with compiler-pacifying turds. This could be made to work right but the same people who think we need shit like this can't be bothered doing a proper job of implementing it. We have attitudes such as yours to thank for crap like that.
At my new job there are debates on what compiler warming levels to adopt. The reason is the release process enforces a no-tolerance policy for warnings and there's a large code base that will never be warning-free at higher levels. This is what you get when you create compiler-enforced "rules" rather than focus on skills and better code quality, particularly when you abdicate to tools you don't control or even understand.
"The phablet market is tiny despite all the noise from tech forums. According to google the phablet market is just 10%. 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less."
Screen sizes larger than the iPhone are not "phablets". Yet another example of defining terms by what benefits a pro-Apple argument.
"Ah yes, the famous "Haters' gonna hate" pre-emptive strike to encourage people with mod points to spend them on you so they can prove to themselves how open-minded they are."
How is that any different than the tribalism that dominates moderation? People will mod it down for the wrong reasons and they will mod it up for the wrong reasons. Not the OP's fault.
Adoption would have happened sooner if it weren't for an AT&T lawsuit only it wouldn't have been Linux, it would have been BSD. So yes, absolutely.
BSD was far more advanced and would have remained so, all without GNU. There was demand and interest PLUS a mature non-GNU codebase. There was a legal cloud over it that didn't resolve until Linux gain sufficient momentum. Without lawsuit troubles, GNU and Linux would likely have never existed AND we'd be better off.
Listing RMS as first among "all contributors" is an insult to all contributors. RMS hasn't been a contributor for a long, long time. His "contributions" are politics, increasing license restrictions, and renaming other people's products to give himself glory.
But Stallman didn't "pull the Linux kernel off"; he accomplished little of what he said he'd do. Fortunately we have others to do the work for which Stallman can take credit.
Slashdot Mirror
"That, IMHO, makes a bit more sense than curving it from side to side..."
Except after you think about it. A phone curved that way doesn't travel as well, doesn't lay flat, and isn't well suited to being used in landscape. It's OK to hold in your hand and worse otherwise (which is most of the time). The single argument in its favor, that the microphone is closer, is contrived. That doesn't matter at all.
Nothing remotely ironic about that. It's the express purpose.
And in neither of these cases where the ideas being stolen original to Apple. What "nagged" Jobs was not the stealing, it was that it was not him doing the stealing. After all, iOS itself was mostly unoriginal theft from other smartphone makers.
All this is is another example of Jobs' unbounded ego.
Mac had the worst SCSI implementation ever devised, had proprietary SCSI connectors, had the worst networking in the market, and had CPUs that lacked memory management hardware. Meanwhile, those 286's had complete protected memory subsystems. You are mistaken...what a surprise.
And the BIOS was published in source form and you could buy technical reference manuals for it. Some secret it was!!!
Complete and utter bullshit.
Apple was famous for their cheapness and that "hardware that could support GUIs" was a 9" monochrome monitor with terrible resolution. PC's had better than that from the start.
IBM PCs were more expensive than Macs in the beginning and were vastly more premium in build. Apparently you weren't born yet.
"...and Mac fans used to scream loudly (and rightly) how the IBM chips beat Intel on real-world benchmarks while Intel touted their higher speed."
Mac fans used to scream loudly about anything that made Macs look good...and still do. It's called tribalism and it isn't about being "right", it's about being on the winning team.
Apple only used an IBM "chip" once. It's clear you don't know that so it's no surprise you don't know how "rightly" Mac fans were about their screaming either. G5's were, in the balance, not faster than their Intel contemporaries. Better at some things and worse at others. One thing was clear with the G5 and it was that Apple was switching to Intel afterward.
If you asked any "Mac fan" back in the day you'd get explained to you just how superior every generation of PowerPC Mac was to any PC ever. It's surprising then, just how much better Macs got once they switched to a real processor. Macs today ARE PCs in every way yet those Mac fans still have that feeling of smug superiority. They are inherently right always, Steve told them so, they just aren't well informed.
People love to make up crap about which they know nothing. Dell was never a competitor of Apple and they never considered themselves such. Never.
Dell was not asked what he'd do to fix Apple, he was asked what he'd do if he were CEO of Apple. Big difference. Dell responded that he would be a poor choice for CEO. Naturally, you don't remember this or care to know any differently. It would put a dent in the smugness.
Nice to see all the "Interesting" comments on a Dell topic involving Apple. Par for the course.
If you read the original interview, you would know better than to say this. Dell never "predicted" anything to be "right" about. Dell said he would return the money to stockholders as an example of why he would be a poor choice to lead the company. The rest is a bunch of fanboys jacking off over it.
No surprise to see this inflammatory and grossly misleading article quoted here, from the usual suspect of course. SuperKendall is incapable of anything else.
"Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?"
Not just nowadays.
Democratic moderation, in all its forms, only furthers tribalism. It exists due to laziness and the desire to play to people's egos. It is rarely used as "intended".
What an ignorant perspective. Tribalists will say anything.
"TeX is horrible in the sense that it's a glorified macro processor state machine..." ...and it shares this trait with every other system intended to be compiled.
Of course, there's the TeX engine and the default macro packages which are different things. Different front ends could have different behaviors. You are not bound to plain TeX or LaTeX or a few others, write your own. You obviously feel confident of your expertise.
"Remind me, why do we have computers again? To automate stuff? I thought so."
Apparently you need to be reminded. TeX is a system for "automating stuff", not a system for interactively enabling tweaks by hand. The problem you cite comes from your desire to do stupid things.
"I guess the issue here is where on Kinsey scale you personally stop consider people to be heterosexual and start considering them homosexual."
It is not one or the other. This is the point of the Kinsey scale and saying it means you miss the point entirely.
You sound like a real expert.
"Unfortunately there's a lot of old code that doesn't do this..."
Nice implication that this is a standard rather than a preference. A lot of new code "doesn't do this" either because a lot of people don't feel like you do, myself included.
Writing expressions backwards hampers the readability of code and only theoretically catches problems. I can count on one hand the times in my career I've suffered this particular fate and I'm not going to pay a price every day for a structural "solution" to a problem I don't have. I've been working with programmers that do this for 20 years and have never found it to be anything but a nuisance. If it works for them, fine, but it doesn't go into my work. I'm not weak but if you are then by all means, use your crutch.
Sometimes the answer is be better at what you do. Once upon a time you could declare a local variable in a switch statement without explicitly limiting scope. Now you must incur the wrath of the nanny compiler or pollute your code with compiler-pacifying turds. This could be made to work right but the same people who think we need shit like this can't be bothered doing a proper job of implementing it. We have attitudes such as yours to thank for crap like that.
At my new job there are debates on what compiler warming levels to adopt. The reason is the release process enforces a no-tolerance policy for warnings and there's a large code base that will never be warning-free at higher levels. This is what you get when you create compiler-enforced "rules" rather than focus on skills and better code quality, particularly when you abdicate to tools you don't control or even understand.
No, it shouldn't.
"The phablet market is tiny despite all the noise from tech forums. According to google the phablet market is just 10%. 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less."
Screen sizes larger than the iPhone are not "phablets". Yet another example of defining terms by what benefits a pro-Apple argument.
"Ah yes, the famous "Haters' gonna hate" pre-emptive strike to encourage people with mod points to spend them on you so they can prove to themselves how open-minded they are."
How is that any different than the tribalism that dominates moderation? People will mod it down for the wrong reasons and they will mod it up for the wrong reasons. Not the OP's fault.
Anyone who believes this isn't qualified to participate in a discussion of it.
"He was the principle author of the GNU GPL [gnu.org], the first real open source license."
I'd love to see the creative definition of "real open source license" for which that is true. There were open source licenses before the FSF existed.
Except for BSD which came before, so they got the ball rolling that was rolling already.
It's directly analogous to claiming that Gnome got the ball rolling on a GUI for X since you dismiss anything that came before that wasn't GNU.
Adoption would have happened sooner if it weren't for an AT&T lawsuit only it wouldn't have been Linux, it would have been BSD. So yes, absolutely.
BSD was far more advanced and would have remained so, all without GNU. There was demand and interest PLUS a mature non-GNU codebase. There was a legal cloud over it that didn't resolve until Linux gain sufficient momentum. Without lawsuit troubles, GNU and Linux would likely have never existed AND we'd be better off.
Listing RMS as first among "all contributors" is an insult to all contributors. RMS hasn't been a contributor for a long, long time. His "contributions" are politics, increasing license restrictions, and renaming other people's products to give himself glory.
But Stallman didn't "pull the Linux kernel off"; he accomplished little of what he said he'd do. Fortunately we have others to do the work for which Stallman can take credit.