I'm confused. Are they saying that mainstream web traffic accounts for far less than 35% of the bandwidth the internet consumes? By saying that BT is "dwarfing" the web traffic, that would make me think that something like 5-10% of traffic is HTTP. Am I wrong in finding that hard to believe?
That is almost a moot point since every app has a different set of menus. Even if the first item was the same, the rest of the menu would still change.
Sure, File Edit View are there usually, but I think it's a minor issue.
Wow I like this one.
Here they are
most of "Connect to server" server connections don't work, example ftp:// one version asks for password, but latest OSX patch does not. Copying files doesn't work as it should.
This is really vague. FTP is read-only, sure. There is no built in FTP client in OS9.
Network interface was simple. Chooser and that was it. Now there is trashed all over the place. Network in finder supporting SMB only???
The network in the finder doesn't support SMB only. You think the finder was better? There was no SMB (or NFS) support at ALL. You're forgetting the "network browser" conveniently.
Start menu has gone bad since OSX.
There is no fucking "start" menu. Do you know what you're talking about?
Mail has fatal flaws. (Besides its fatal unusability)
Wow, that's a little vague too. I use it all day without a single problem.
Themes aren't consistant. And please don't say BrMetal is multimedia, standard is other software. Even Apple wasn't consistant with this feature
Window Titlebar. Was clear, now you get ughly and bad positioning.
Window titlebars are exactly the same as they are in OS X. WTF are you talking about?
Mouse (ok, that one was bad and still is)
What's wrong with the mouse?
OS9 detected new monitor. OSX doesn't. I wouldn't even notice that if I wouldn't disconnect 22" monitor and connect 17". Guess what (blank screen)
File layout was perfect, now it isn't.
System files were perfect. Throw preferences to trash and it works. Now it doesn't, Everything is displaced on various locations. (even Windows don't have such bad file layout)
Actually everything is on ~/Library/Preferences
You could reinstall system, copy (not install) software and preferences. You could work. Now it is not even a bit better than Windows.
Explain how you can not copy software in OS X.
Response was fast, now eye candy is slowing down everything.
Harddrives often get locked in OSX.
Huh?
Printers don't support CMYK ICC profiles (OS9 was supporting them). Sory, buddy. cups is not CMYK proof concept. You can install rip though, but that is something you can install anywhere
Really bad system menu layout. It was almost perfect
No more delete and it is uninstalled. It was trashing all over th place
So the extensions folder in OS9 didn't exist?
Everything is too big without system scaling option. (There wasn't scaling in OS9 but at least it was usable on smaller resolutions)
Should I continue????
You don't know what you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.
The power supply on the cube was an external unit, I had plenty of good ones to test it with. There were visibly fried chips on the motherboard and video card.
It was seriously dead. I worked with dozens of cubes at the time, and I know what I'm doing:p
Besides, you don't even need the plastic case for the thing to work, it has a nice neat little frame that's designed to come right out, and works great sitting by itself.
Everything.
Honestly, the machine had been thrown away because it was totally kaput, and didn't have a warranty. There was nothing salvagable as far as a working machine goes.
Excellent point. It's not OK, but classic exists as a hack to bring in compatibility with OS9, it was designed to be phased out over the long term.
Applications in X are also there as a hack to appease users that need access to them, it's not a default installation, and it's not something that Apple recommends that developers move towards, quite the opposite
Classic and X is very very specific environments designed for people that need to use them as a last resort, they are not designed to be an integral part of the OS.
Carbon and Cocoa are a much better example of two completely seperate sets of APIs and development environments that work almost seamlessly in OS X. In some cases you have to work very hard to tell which one was used to make an application. That's the ideal that applications on linux should work toward. And the only reason it's working on OS X is because there is a good central force (Apple) driving things forward and making sure it all works together.
I'm curious if there is a picture of my cube fishtank (http://home.comcast.net/~jleblanc77/cube/) in the book. The author and I exchanged some emails about it. Has anyone seen the book yet, and know if it's in there?
"Both GNOME and KDE are more consistent than either OS X or Windows"
Maybe the OS itself, but not the way that applications run on it. OS X has done a really nice job of making sure that applications written in cocoa and carbon behave the same. (it's been worse in the past, and gotten much better.) Maybe it's a testament to the Mac application developers, but linux apps on GNOME and KDE are nothing if not inconsistent with each other and the OS.
OK, you can't single out KDE, but it's still a problem.
I don't see how this commentary is "garbage" There is a real problem with consistency and polish on the linux desktop, it's ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows.
" it's just that not all applications are written in QT, just as not all Gnome apps are written in GTK. So, you get some apps that don't fall in line with the look and feel of the rest of the OS.
"
So you're agreeing with me, but not with where I am placing the blame? Fair enough, maybe blaming KDE isn't fair, but it's still a huge problem.
For every one geeky thing that OS X can learn from KDE, there are fifty things that KDE can learn about design, usability, polish, and consistency from OS X.
There's no way that a book like this can address the nuances of every motor, so I would say it's mostly useless to you. It can tell you in general terms what to do to a big displacement NA engine (colder air, better ECU, engine internals, etc.) but you probbaly already know that.
except I don't believe the iPod has a way to play through audio from another source. So if there was any iPod/XM hybrid, it would simply be using the iPod as a battery... which would suck, since the iPod battery isn't fantastic to start with.
at 7 miles line of sight will almost certainly be required. You can do 7 miles now LoS at 54Mb without a problem. A couple of $2500 cisco 1400 bridges would do the trick. There are probably quite a few cheaper solutions, I'm only familiar with the cisco ones for a bridge of that type.
But that's not a limitation of the technology, it's a limitation of the way it's implemented. With a new wireless standard it is likely to be the same. There will be ways to make things less secure, and most people will probably use it in that way.
My point wasn't that securing a wireless network is simple, it was that new technology does not necessarily make things any more inherantly secure than it is now.
The future? There's nothing keeping people from locking them down now. Combining not broadcasting an SSID, MAC access control, WEP, and IP address management can go a long ways. It's not perfect, but it's enough for most users. In the future there will still be stupid people with open access points. Technology has yet to outpace the idiot.
This sounds exactly like sub-pixel antialiasing, which is the basic for lots of things, including OS X's font smoothing on LCDs, and Microsoft's type technology... I forget its name.
Is it really as simple as that? because that's been around for at least 25+ years in theory, a bit less in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. Are they saying that mainstream web traffic accounts for far less than 35% of the bandwidth the internet consumes? By saying that BT is "dwarfing" the web traffic, that would make me think that something like 5-10% of traffic is HTTP. Am I wrong in finding that hard to believe?
The next big waste of time.
Sure, File Edit View are there usually, but I think it's a minor issue.
Wow I like this one. Here they are most of "Connect to server" server connections don't work, example ftp:// one version asks for password, but latest OSX patch does not. Copying files doesn't work as it should. This is really vague. FTP is read-only, sure. There is no built in FTP client in OS9. Network interface was simple. Chooser and that was it. Now there is trashed all over the place. Network in finder supporting SMB only??? The network in the finder doesn't support SMB only. You think the finder was better? There was no SMB (or NFS) support at ALL. You're forgetting the "network browser" conveniently. Start menu has gone bad since OSX. There is no fucking "start" menu. Do you know what you're talking about? Mail has fatal flaws. (Besides its fatal unusability) Wow, that's a little vague too. I use it all day without a single problem. Themes aren't consistant. And please don't say BrMetal is multimedia, standard is other software. Even Apple wasn't consistant with this feature Window Titlebar. Was clear, now you get ughly and bad positioning. Window titlebars are exactly the same as they are in OS X. WTF are you talking about? Mouse (ok, that one was bad and still is) What's wrong with the mouse? OS9 detected new monitor. OSX doesn't. I wouldn't even notice that if I wouldn't disconnect 22" monitor and connect 17". Guess what (blank screen) File layout was perfect, now it isn't. System files were perfect. Throw preferences to trash and it works. Now it doesn't, Everything is displaced on various locations. (even Windows don't have such bad file layout) Actually everything is on ~/Library/Preferences You could reinstall system, copy (not install) software and preferences. You could work. Now it is not even a bit better than Windows. Explain how you can not copy software in OS X. Response was fast, now eye candy is slowing down everything. Harddrives often get locked in OSX. Huh? Printers don't support CMYK ICC profiles (OS9 was supporting them). Sory, buddy. cups is not CMYK proof concept. You can install rip though, but that is something you can install anywhere Really bad system menu layout. It was almost perfect No more delete and it is uninstalled. It was trashing all over th place So the extensions folder in OS9 didn't exist? Everything is too big without system scaling option. (There wasn't scaling in OS9 but at least it was usable on smaller resolutions) Should I continue???? You don't know what you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.
That's brilliant. If I was a bigtime web admin person, I would TOTALLY get that plate.
I'm really interested to hear what kinds of things you think have been eliminated or gone downhill from OS9.
It was seriously dead. I worked with dozens of cubes at the time, and I know what I'm doing :p
Besides, you don't even need the plastic case for the thing to work, it has a nice neat little frame that's designed to come right out, and works great sitting by itself.
Everything. Honestly, the machine had been thrown away because it was totally kaput, and didn't have a warranty. There was nothing salvagable as far as a working machine goes.
If you read the page you'll find that the cube was broken, and not repairable. I still have its guts, I just used the case for the tank.
Applications in X are also there as a hack to appease users that need access to them, it's not a default installation, and it's not something that Apple recommends that developers move towards, quite the opposite
Classic and X is very very specific environments designed for people that need to use them as a last resort, they are not designed to be an integral part of the OS.
Carbon and Cocoa are a much better example of two completely seperate sets of APIs and development environments that work almost seamlessly in OS X. In some cases you have to work very hard to tell which one was used to make an application. That's the ideal that applications on linux should work toward. And the only reason it's working on OS X is because there is a good central force (Apple) driving things forward and making sure it all works together.
I'm curious if there is a picture of my cube fishtank (http://home.comcast.net/~jleblanc77/cube/) in the book. The author and I exchanged some emails about it. Has anyone seen the book yet, and know if it's in there?
Maybe the OS itself, but not the way that applications run on it. OS X has done a really nice job of making sure that applications written in cocoa and carbon behave the same. (it's been worse in the past, and gotten much better.) Maybe it's a testament to the Mac application developers, but linux apps on GNOME and KDE are nothing if not inconsistent with each other and the OS.
I don't see how this commentary is "garbage" There is a real problem with consistency and polish on the linux desktop, it's ugly and clunky compared to OS X or even windows.
" it's just that not all applications are written in QT, just as not all Gnome apps are written in GTK. So, you get some apps that don't fall in line with the look and feel of the rest of the OS. "
So you're agreeing with me, but not with where I am placing the blame? Fair enough, maybe blaming KDE isn't fair, but it's still a huge problem.
For every one geeky thing that OS X can learn from KDE, there are fifty things that KDE can learn about design, usability, polish, and consistency from OS X.
Homestar jumped the shark so long ago it's not even remotely funny to me now.
There's no way that a book like this can address the nuances of every motor, so I would say it's mostly useless to you. It can tell you in general terms what to do to a big displacement NA engine (colder air, better ECU, engine internals, etc.) but you probbaly already know that.
Given that MS sold under 200 Xboxes in japan, I would almost be willing to bet that more classic nintendo games traded hands than new Xbox games.
I love odd little british phrases like that, thanks for clearing things up.
Maybe it's a japanese one...
Super Lucky Best Cheerful Watercooler 100% !@#!@# ^_^
Post your home address and phone number, and maybe a picture of yourself. Might not get $100, but I'm sure someone on /. will send you something :)
except I don't believe the iPod has a way to play through audio from another source. So if there was any iPod/XM hybrid, it would simply be using the iPod as a battery... which would suck, since the iPod battery isn't fantastic to start with.
at 7 miles line of sight will almost certainly be required. You can do 7 miles now LoS at 54Mb without a problem. A couple of $2500 cisco 1400 bridges would do the trick. There are probably quite a few cheaper solutions, I'm only familiar with the cisco ones for a bridge of that type.
My point wasn't that securing a wireless network is simple, it was that new technology does not necessarily make things any more inherantly secure than it is now.
The future? There's nothing keeping people from locking them down now. Combining not broadcasting an SSID, MAC access control, WEP, and IP address management can go a long ways. It's not perfect, but it's enough for most users. In the future there will still be stupid people with open access points. Technology has yet to outpace the idiot.
Is it really as simple as that? because that's been around for at least 25+ years in theory, a bit less in practice.