You know, if we'd been buying Apples crap all this time instead of PCs, Linux never would have had a chance. Apple are much more ruthless about locking down their hardware and software than Microsoft ever were.
I can install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro, and I can install Leopard on as many Macs that meet the minimum hardware requirements. Where's the locking? The only lockin I see is where Apple has made it hard to install OS X on generic hardware, but guess what? Apple makes, er has a subcontractor make, hardware they then sell, ie Apple isn't a hardware or a software business, Apple is a systems integrator creating compleat systems, system that "Just Work".
You know, I initially had high hopes for iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, and iPhoto; it's one of the reasons I got a Mac. But one by one, I gave up on those apps. They look great during demos, and seem like fun initially, but they don't scale, they don't work with many standard formats, they mangle their libraries, move files around, and they really try to make it hard to use anything other than Apple products.
Having recently switched from Windows to OS X, about 4 months ago, I have yet to use any of the iApps. I don't even use Safari, I'm typing this in Firefox. For an office suite I have NeoOffice, though I mostly use TextEdit for any writing, other than posts.
Most Mac apps are extremely simple to install (usually drag-n-drop to applications folder) - so I don't see how that is any more difficult than installing using a package manager.
That's a typical geek view. For non-technical users, Macintosh installs turn out to be a big source of confusion.
For "non-technical users" which is easier, Drag and Drop, or using a package manager? I bet most would say Drag and Drop.
Utter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps
Gimp?
Whereas Photoshop has 32 bits per colour channel for a total of 96 bits, GIMP still only has 8 bits per channel for a total of 24 bits. For print media that added colour bit depth is important. However there's Film GIMP or CinePaint which also has 32 bits per colour channel.
As a final point, I actually find installation and usage of applications to be very intuitive and easy under Ubuntu. Add/Remove software is built directly into the interface, and it contains any type of software I've ever really wanted or needed to use. There's also the availability of Wine.
Drag and Drop is even easier to install software on Macs. Macs also have Wine and CrossOver.
Linux (Ubuntu, Debian and Redhat, as well as many others) have a nifty little package manager where you can install a program for almost anything you can think of. Where is that feature on your Mac? The Mac may come with a number of third party tools, but they still don't do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer. Under Linux, it's much closer to "feature complete", as far as application availability.
There's MacPorts and Fink. Macports uses RPMs and Fink uses "Debian tools like dpkg and apt-get". Not only can I install Mac software but I can also install many programs for BSD and Linux.
Someone into graphics and photography is not going to be happy with the Linux offerings, no matter how complete, since the apps don't even exist for the platform.
While I agree different Linux distros come with different programs there's not much of a problem with apps for graphics and photography. Sure Adobe hasn't released Photoshop for Linux yet, but it can be installed on Linux systems with WINE or CrossOver. Even if Linux won't install CS3, though it doesn't have everything CS3 does, there's CinePaint, formerly Film GIMP, used in the movie industry. For graphics other than for photography there's Inscape, Xara Extreme, Blender, and other programs that are cross platform. Actually because I want to learn it I picked up a book yesterday on Blender. Now, only if I could find one for CinePaint. And yes, though only an amateur now I hope to break into photography freelance. Because I've only done film and not digital work, I'll probably be working with film a lot at first. But I'll scan film and work digitally, so I'll tryout CinePaint first and then only if it doesn't workout well will I get Photoshop. Then to save money on it I'll get an old version then get the upgrade version.
Because after a clean MacOS install, you have to manually install all the applications and utilities you want to use.
WTF? No, you don't.
Have you never heard of "Migration Assistant"? Not only does it copy your applications, it copies your system setting and documents as well.
GP does say "clean install", but even if "Migration Assistant" assists migrating from one Mac to another it's no good for clean installs with just one Mac. However GP also says Ubuntu installs all apps needed when Ubuntu is installed, which I seriously doubt.
1. Openoffice (NeoOffice sucks and I don't want to use openoffice X on the mac and deal with strangeness. And so I'm reliant on MS Office
I have and use NeoOffice and there's no problem with it, not even with MS Office 2007 docs I downloaded from the web. Maybe you tried an older version if NeoOffice didn't work. Also MS Office runs on Macs, but not on Linux without WINE or CrossOver. Though I won't use it a trialware version came on my MBP.
2. I do some computations (code in fortran)
This I can see, a special app. Maybe XCode 2 or the new version 3 will work. I don't plan on trying Fortran on the Mac but I plan to tryout Free Pascal and want to learn Smalltalk.
4. I don't want to use Fink on mac I'd rather just use native apps on linux (I'm not a programmer, but I like to tinker)
I tried to use Fink to install HTTrack but for some reason it wouldn't download. Just as well though, I want to create an OS X native port install of use the X11 port.
So mostly it's not that you can't use Macs but that you want to use specific brand named apps that don't run on Macs instead of an app that does the same thing.
I won't pay overpriced hardware to get to the software.
Have you compared prices on comparable Macs and PCs lately? Today's Macs are comparable in prices to PCs with comparable specs. The problem with Macs is that Apple doesn't have as wide a range of Macs as PC OEMs have for PCs. This shuts out those who want a custom configuration but it also means Apple doesn't have to spend a lot testing a bunch of various configurations.
I have a mac laptop for "day to day" (pretty presentations, etc) and linux on my home desktop to do things I can't on my mac.
What can you do running Linux you can't do on your Mac? A few months ago I ordered a MacBook Pro, and before ordering it I was planning on setting it up to dual boot Tiger and Ubuntu. However once I got it I started wondering exactly what installing Ubuntu would offer I can't do now. For the same reason I don't plan on upgrading to Leopard, it doesn't offer anything I need but don't have now.
You may have a point about it being easier to install Ubuntu on a random untested piece of hardware than OS X, but. on the opposite end of the spectrum, installing Mac OS X on a Macbook Pro (made for use with OS X) takes fewer clicks and requires less dialog pages be clicked through than installing Ubuntu on a Dell Inspiron 1420 N (made for use with Ubuntu)).
You don't have any horror stories upgrading to Leopard then do you? Apple's forums are filled with them. Even though I have Leopard I have no plan on upgrading to it from Tiger.
I dual boot Mac OS and Ubuntu now and I have to say I found it far easier to install than previous linux distributions I've tried.
A few months ago a got a MacBook Pro and at first I was planning on dual booting with Tiger and Ubuntu. However once I got it I started wondering what use I would get out of dual booting it. And for the same reason I haven't upgraded to Leopard either, even though I have a disk for Leopard.
what about civil trials? Don't I have a right as a plaintiff to expect the jury to judge my case based on the law
Civil law cases have lower standards than criminal cases. Whereas a criminal case requires belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence of guilt. That's how OJ Simpson was able to get an innocent verdict in his criminal case but lost in the civil case. That makes sense, in a criminal case a person can end up being locked away however is a civil case all the person may loose is money or property. As a plaintiff that helps you.
So as for basing civil cases on law I think it's actually easier for a plaintiff to win. I was personally involved in a civil case. Years ago while I was a student in college a moving van, from Apartment Movers, hit me while I was riding my bike after my classes. Because the accident was clearly caused by the driver his employer and their insurance decided to settle before it went to court. Not that it helps me, because what was important to me I lost I wish I had died.
Without an FCC, how does 99.66667 become "yours" that someone is infringing upon?
Ever hear of Homesteading? Before the Federal Radio Commission, the predecessor to the FCC, was created courts in the US were recognizing rights to frequencies someone had homesteaded, started broadcasting on. In other words if a person, party, started broadcasting on a given frequency then another party started broadcasting on the same frequency the first party could sue the second party for interfering and the court would uphold the first party's right to use that frequency without interference. No FCC or other agency, commission in this case, was needed. Just allow civil courts handle it.
This is especially true if we had two stations in the same city
With the number of frequencies available all one broadcaster would have to do is shift the frequency used. Where one of them could prove they were using that frequency first the court could require the second one of move to another frequency. And it's no technological feat to use another. I was able to easily change the frequency of the first radio I built, back in the 1970s, of course it didn't have much of a range of frequencies it could pick up but it was a simply radio with a wire coiled around a roll taken from a used roll of paper.
Those ten companies aren't really competing, they are controlled by a small group of individuals. Most board members sit on the boards of several companies.
Would you care to prove that? Say, by naming the board members of each company then pointing out each board a person sits on. Start with say NBC, or more correctly General Electric which owns NBC. Then name what boards other than Walt Disney, which owns ABC, Steve Jobs sits on. Now about CBS, owned by Viacom, here's Viacom's board of directors.. To make is easier here's Disney's board of directors. Here's GE's Board of Directors.
I bet you won't find many directors that sit on more than one media company's board of directors, never mind "several".
About the source, I'll just say that when you start with a desired conclusion, it isn't hard to come up with data to support it. Reason isn't interested in finding out if free markets are they best, they take that on faith. They are out to prove what they already believe.
Exactly what I expected, you rag on who did the study not on what faults, if any, the study had despite my having asked you not too do so. Even opposed scientists critique research and studies not the views of the opposing scientists.
The problem is that the judge can't say "I think that this witness isn't credible" in order to find for summary judgment -- that's a function of the jury which is the factfinder. All a judge can do on summary judgement is say that the case law doesn't give the other side a claim even if everything they say is true.
As a previous poster said "One problem there is that the judge, contrary to what Parloff claims, did not strike that testimony." The link has "the entire paragraph" on "pages 19 and 20 of the ruling".
This is two thirds correct. Juries also have the responsibility to decide laws, it's called Jury Nullification. Ultimately it's the jury that has the ultimate power. If a juror believes a law is bad or wrong it's the juror's duty to nullify the law.
Actually if you get called for jury duty but you don't want to be picked to serve on a jury then during questioning all you have to say is you believe in jury nullification. That' basically an automatic disqualification. Though it's part of the founding of the USA most judges and prosecutors try to avoid those who know about it, because it reduces their power. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, said "The Jury has the right to judge both the law and the fact in controversy."
No, justice will NOT be served at all. McBride and his lawyers and the board of SCO will still be stinking filthy rich, and worse, richer than when this debacle started. Were justice to be served, Darl et al would have to spend time in prison.
It would be justice if McBride et alia were put on a chain gang breaking large rocks into small ones with their money going to pay those who lost money, including all the money in Cayman Islands banks.
Falcon
Oh Boy, I'd love to be in the Caymans scuba diving!
Now I am not going to shed too many tears of this in the particular case, but it is troubling in a broader sense that a company is going to go bankrupt because its survival was based on licensing valuable property and a judge seriously botched summary judgment.
The problem I have with this whole case, which can cause serious trouble for SMBs (Small to Medium Businesses), is that an entity like SCO can come along and a drag a lawsuit through the courts costing the defendants millions of dollars. Such a lawsuit could cause a company smaller than IBM to go out of business. SCO never showed any sort of evidence even though they had years in which to find any. What's even more troubling is that a company like MS can pay someone to drag such a lawsuit through the courts damaging the competition.
To me, the true ham is a technically capable individual that has the skill set, equipment and ingenuity to see himself through a situation like the upper west coast has seen recently.
I can see requiring someone who wants to get a license to build their own transceiver, but I'm glad they got rid of the Morse code requirement. Maybe require it for higher licenses but not for beginners.
Purist or Elitist? I've got a General license and I find that particularly on the internet, old hams are dickheads. They act as if we new hams are invading their private paradise, and instead of assisting and community building, they bitch and moan and howl about how ham radio is turning into CB, and how the sky is falling. Those old farts still on the air are just as crotchety as you'd expect, whining about how all the new hams are walking on their amateur band lawns.
About 20 years ago a friend was the president of a local amateur radio club and he along with other members encouraged people to learn and get a license. They held classes frequently so people could learn and get their license.
I got my first Ham license back in the 1980s. Back then you had to be able to do 20wpm morse code to get to the highest license.
Morse code is what held me back from getting my license. I was able to build my own transceiver but was bad with Morse code. I was glad they got rid of the requirement for Morse code.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if we'd been buying Apples crap all this time instead of PCs, Linux never would have had a chance. Apple are much more ruthless about locking down their hardware and software than Microsoft ever were.
I can install Ubuntu on my MacBook Pro, and I can install Leopard on as many Macs that meet the minimum hardware requirements. Where's the locking? The only lockin I see is where Apple has made it hard to install OS X on generic hardware, but guess what? Apple makes, er has a subcontractor make, hardware they then sell, ie Apple isn't a hardware or a software business, Apple is a systems integrator creating compleat systems, system that "Just Work".
FalconYou know, I initially had high hopes for iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, and iPhoto; it's one of the reasons I got a Mac. But one by one, I gave up on those apps. They look great during demos, and seem like fun initially, but they don't scale, they don't work with many standard formats, they mangle their libraries, move files around, and they really try to make it hard to use anything other than Apple products.
Having recently switched from Windows to OS X, about 4 months ago, I have yet to use any of the iApps. I don't even use Safari, I'm typing this in Firefox. For an office suite I have NeoOffice, though I mostly use TextEdit for any writing, other than posts.
FalconMost Mac apps are extremely simple to install (usually drag-n-drop to applications folder) - so I don't see how that is any more difficult than installing using a package manager.
That's a typical geek view. For non-technical users, Macintosh installs turn out to be a big source of confusion.
For "non-technical users" which is easier, Drag and Drop, or using a package manager? I bet most would say Drag and Drop.
FalconUtter horseshit. under Linux, you can't even get many types of app - for example, there are no Photoshop-class image editing apps
Gimp?
Whereas Photoshop has 32 bits per colour channel for a total of 96 bits, GIMP still only has 8 bits per channel for a total of 24 bits. For print media that added colour bit depth is important. However there's Film GIMP or CinePaint which also has 32 bits per colour channel.
As a final point, I actually find installation and usage of applications to be very intuitive and easy under Ubuntu. Add/Remove software is built directly into the interface, and it contains any type of software I've ever really wanted or needed to use. There's also the availability of Wine.
Drag and Drop is even easier to install software on Macs. Macs also have Wine and CrossOver.
FalconLinux (Ubuntu, Debian and Redhat, as well as many others) have a nifty little package manager where you can install a program for almost anything you can think of. Where is that feature on your Mac? The Mac may come with a number of third party tools, but they still don't do 100% of what every user wants to do with their computer. Under Linux, it's much closer to "feature complete", as far as application availability.
There's MacPorts and Fink. Macports uses RPMs and Fink uses "Debian tools like dpkg and apt-get". Not only can I install Mac software but I can also install many programs for BSD and Linux.
FalconSomeone into graphics and photography is not going to be happy with the Linux offerings, no matter how complete, since the apps don't even exist for the platform.
While I agree different Linux distros come with different programs there's not much of a problem with apps for graphics and photography. Sure Adobe hasn't released Photoshop for Linux yet, but it can be installed on Linux systems with WINE or CrossOver. Even if Linux won't install CS3, though it doesn't have everything CS3 does, there's CinePaint, formerly Film GIMP, used in the movie industry. For graphics other than for photography there's Inscape, Xara Extreme, Blender, and other programs that are cross platform. Actually because I want to learn it I picked up a book yesterday on Blender. Now, only if I could find one for CinePaint. And yes, though only an amateur now I hope to break into photography freelance. Because I've only done film and not digital work, I'll probably be working with film a lot at first. But I'll scan film and work digitally, so I'll tryout CinePaint first and then only if it doesn't workout well will I get Photoshop. Then to save money on it I'll get an old version then get the upgrade version.
Ah, it's be good to get back into the darkroom.
FalconBecause after a clean MacOS install, you have to manually install all the applications and utilities you want to use.
WTF? No, you don't.
Have you never heard of "Migration Assistant"? Not only does it copy your applications, it copies your system setting and documents as well.
GP does say "clean install", but even if "Migration Assistant" assists migrating from one Mac to another it's no good for clean installs with just one Mac. However GP also says Ubuntu installs all apps needed when Ubuntu is installed, which I seriously doubt.
FalconUbuntu installs and just works: all the applications are there out of the box.
By default Ubuntu installs every single program a person could want?
Falcon1. Openoffice (NeoOffice sucks and I don't want to use openoffice X on the mac and deal with strangeness. And so I'm reliant on MS Office
I have and use NeoOffice and there's no problem with it, not even with MS Office 2007 docs I downloaded from the web. Maybe you tried an older version if NeoOffice didn't work. Also MS Office runs on Macs, but not on Linux without WINE or CrossOver. Though I won't use it a trialware version came on my MBP.
2. I do some computations (code in fortran)
This I can see, a special app. Maybe XCode 2 or the new version 3 will work. I don't plan on trying Fortran on the Mac but I plan to tryout Free Pascal and want to learn Smalltalk.
4. I don't want to use Fink on mac I'd rather just use native apps on linux (I'm not a programmer, but I like to tinker)
I tried to use Fink to install HTTrack but for some reason it wouldn't download. Just as well though, I want to create an OS X native port install of use the X11 port.
So mostly it's not that you can't use Macs but that you want to use specific brand named apps that don't run on Macs instead of an app that does the same thing.
FalconI won't pay overpriced hardware to get to the software.
Have you compared prices on comparable Macs and PCs lately? Today's Macs are comparable in prices to PCs with comparable specs. The problem with Macs is that Apple doesn't have as wide a range of Macs as PC OEMs have for PCs. This shuts out those who want a custom configuration but it also means Apple doesn't have to spend a lot testing a bunch of various configurations.
FalconI have a mac laptop for "day to day" (pretty presentations, etc) and linux on my home desktop to do things I can't on my mac.
What can you do running Linux you can't do on your Mac? A few months ago I ordered a MacBook Pro, and before ordering it I was planning on setting it up to dual boot Tiger and Ubuntu. However once I got it I started wondering exactly what installing Ubuntu would offer I can't do now. For the same reason I don't plan on upgrading to Leopard, it doesn't offer anything I need but don't have now.
FalconYou may have a point about it being easier to install Ubuntu on a random untested piece of hardware than OS X, but. on the opposite end of the spectrum, installing Mac OS X on a Macbook Pro (made for use with OS X) takes fewer clicks and requires less dialog pages be clicked through than installing Ubuntu on a Dell Inspiron 1420 N (made for use with Ubuntu)).
You don't have any horror stories upgrading to Leopard then do you? Apple's forums are filled with them. Even though I have Leopard I have no plan on upgrading to it from Tiger.
FalconI dual boot Mac OS and Ubuntu now and I have to say I found it far easier to install than previous linux distributions I've tried.
A few months ago a got a MacBook Pro and at first I was planning on dual booting with Tiger and Ubuntu. However once I got it I started wondering what use I would get out of dual booting it. And for the same reason I haven't upgraded to Leopard either, even though I have a disk for Leopard.
FalconI've actually had smarmy corporate types giggle at me on the phone and say things like "can't afford to migrate the whole office to 07 yet, eh?
I'm glad I don't have to deal with such people, who don't know how to run a business.
FalconNo, it's Emca International.
Falconwhat about civil trials? Don't I have a right as a plaintiff to expect the jury to judge my case based on the law
Civil law cases have lower standards than criminal cases. Whereas a criminal case requires belief in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence of guilt. That's how OJ Simpson was able to get an innocent verdict in his criminal case but lost in the civil case. That makes sense, in a criminal case a person can end up being locked away however is a civil case all the person may loose is money or property. As a plaintiff that helps you.
So as for basing civil cases on law I think it's actually easier for a plaintiff to win. I was personally involved in a civil case. Years ago while I was a student in college a moving van, from Apartment Movers, hit me while I was riding my bike after my classes. Because the accident was clearly caused by the driver his employer and their insurance decided to settle before it went to court. Not that it helps me, because what was important to me I lost I wish I had died.
FalconWithout an FCC, how does 99.66667 become "yours" that someone is infringing upon?
Ever hear of Homesteading? Before the Federal Radio Commission, the predecessor to the FCC, was created courts in the US were recognizing rights to frequencies someone had homesteaded, started broadcasting on. In other words if a person, party, started broadcasting on a given frequency then another party started broadcasting on the same frequency the first party could sue the second party for interfering and the court would uphold the first party's right to use that frequency without interference. No FCC or other agency, commission in this case, was needed. Just allow civil courts handle it.
This is especially true if we had two stations in the same city
With the number of frequencies available all one broadcaster would have to do is shift the frequency used. Where one of them could prove they were using that frequency first the court could require the second one of move to another frequency. And it's no technological feat to use another. I was able to easily change the frequency of the first radio I built, back in the 1970s, of course it didn't have much of a range of frequencies it could pick up but it was a simply radio with a wire coiled around a roll taken from a used roll of paper.
FalconThose ten companies aren't really competing, they are controlled by a small group of individuals. Most board members sit on the boards of several companies.
Would you care to prove that? Say, by naming the board members of each company then pointing out each board a person sits on. Start with say NBC, or more correctly General Electric which owns NBC. Then name what boards other than Walt Disney, which owns ABC, Steve Jobs sits on. Now about CBS, owned by Viacom, here's Viacom's board of directors.. To make is easier here's Disney's board of directors. Here's GE's Board of Directors.
I bet you won't find many directors that sit on more than one media company's board of directors, never mind "several".
About the source, I'll just say that when you start with a desired conclusion, it isn't hard to come up with data to support it. Reason isn't interested in finding out if free markets are they best, they take that on faith. They are out to prove what they already believe.
Exactly what I expected, you rag on who did the study not on what faults, if any, the study had despite my having asked you not too do so. Even opposed scientists critique research and studies not the views of the opposing scientists.
FalconThe problem is that the judge can't say "I think that this witness isn't credible" in order to find for summary judgment -- that's a function of the jury which is the factfinder. All a judge can do on summary judgement is say that the case law doesn't give the other side a claim even if everything they say is true.
As a previous poster said "One problem there is that the judge, contrary to what Parloff claims, did not strike that testimony." The link has "the entire paragraph" on "pages 19 and 20 of the ruling".
FalconThis is two thirds correct. Juries also have the responsibility to decide laws, it's called Jury Nullification. Ultimately it's the jury that has the ultimate power. If a juror believes a law is bad or wrong it's the juror's duty to nullify the law.
Actually if you get called for jury duty but you don't want to be picked to serve on a jury then during questioning all you have to say is you believe in jury nullification. That' basically an automatic disqualification. Though it's part of the founding of the USA most judges and prosecutors try to avoid those who know about it, because it reduces their power. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, said "The Jury has the right to judge both the law and the fact in controversy."
FalconNo, justice will NOT be served at all. McBride and his lawyers and the board of SCO will still be stinking filthy rich, and worse, richer than when this debacle started. Were justice to be served, Darl et al would have to spend time in prison.
It would be justice if McBride et alia were put on a chain gang breaking large rocks into small ones with their money going to pay those who lost money, including all the money in Cayman Islands banks.
Falcon
Oh Boy, I'd love to be in the Caymans scuba diving!Now I am not going to shed too many tears of this in the particular case, but it is troubling in a broader sense that a company is going to go bankrupt because its survival was based on licensing valuable property and a judge seriously botched summary judgment.
The problem I have with this whole case, which can cause serious trouble for SMBs (Small to Medium Businesses), is that an entity like SCO can come along and a drag a lawsuit through the courts costing the defendants millions of dollars. Such a lawsuit could cause a company smaller than IBM to go out of business. SCO never showed any sort of evidence even though they had years in which to find any. What's even more troubling is that a company like MS can pay someone to drag such a lawsuit through the courts damaging the competition.
FalconTo me, the true ham is a technically capable individual that has the skill set, equipment and ingenuity to see himself through a situation like the upper west coast has seen recently.
I can see requiring someone who wants to get a license to build their own transceiver, but I'm glad they got rid of the Morse code requirement. Maybe require it for higher licenses but not for beginners.
FalconPurist or Elitist? I've got a General license and I find that particularly on the internet, old hams are dickheads. They act as if we new hams are invading their private paradise, and instead of assisting and community building, they bitch and moan and howl about how ham radio is turning into CB, and how the sky is falling. Those old farts still on the air are just as crotchety as you'd expect, whining about how all the new hams are walking on their amateur band lawns.
About 20 years ago a friend was the president of a local amateur radio club and he along with other members encouraged people to learn and get a license. They held classes frequently so people could learn and get their license.
FalconI got my first Ham license back in the 1980s. Back then you had to be able to do 20wpm morse code to get to the highest license.
Morse code is what held me back from getting my license. I was able to build my own transceiver but was bad with Morse code. I was glad they got rid of the requirement for Morse code.
Falcon