To be honest for me the phone is cheaper than the alternatives i'm looking at and has all of the features i need. i still have the standard ring tone so customising that doesn't phase me one bit but each to their own
Or perhaps it was an elaborate psychological trick to ensure it got hacked. Another AC has commented that the iPhone being hacked might be what Apple wants anyway.
My grandparents have enough issues trying to work out how to call someone on their phone or pick it up from time to time, let alone advanced features such as SMS and changing the ring tone. And if they changed the ring tone they'd forget they changed it and think it was someone elses phone until nobody else picked up, realised it was theirs and try to work out which button they need to press to activate it. On that note the iPhone I feel would be less confusing: "Click the phone icon, tap the numbers, tap the big green call button". Updating the device would seem obvious that they would use the same method they already use for the iPod, namely iTunes.
Some of the issues with activating a mobile phone during flight actually had to do with multiple cells picking up the call and not dealing with the hand-over algorithm properly (in Australia anyway). The issue occurred with analogue phones which did hand overs based on signal strength. The issue is that if you're flying you can quite easily get equal line of sight to two (or more) cells which means they both pick up the phone which resulted in jamming that part of the cell network when a call came through or was made (because it'd go through two or more points and confuse the network). The Telstra solution was to terminate anything that looked like this was happening. With digital communications I believe this has been fixed, but historically activating a phone in flight has had ramifications on the ground.
Just like it took time to learn Office all those years ago when it replaced the superior WordPerfect application. But I'm going to bite that I realise it can generate simple dynamic documents with Word that interacts with database pretty easily. When it comes to a real normalized relational database Word falls over on something that should be really simple. I ran into that problem and ended up coding a quick solution in PHP to generate a PDF instead (could have used Crystal as well but I didn't have a spare license sitting around at the time). In any case doing basic invoices in word would be interesting but I guess if you're not using a fully normalized simple data set then it should have no hassles getting things right, otherwise word doesn't do relational mail merges (unlike the product it replaced, word perfect). its a fine example you've got but it doesn't work.
To be honest I use the multitouch trackpad on my Macbookpro all of the time. Two finger tap for right click, two finger drag for scrolling with the usual single finger tap for left click and single finger drag for normal drag. Multitouch in a small sense is something that I miss when I go to another laptop because I instinctively two finger tap trackpads to try to right click. No need to scroll in a special part of the track pad, no need to press a special part for left and right click. Just the gesture anywhere on the trackpad. Thats multitouch for me in action and working.
And congratulations AC you've missed my point in that PHP without any major marketing campaign came to this point overtaking other rival technologies such as Perl (no major price differential, still installed on a lot of systems even today) has become a dominant technology without even using all of those dirty underhanded methods that Microsoft used to secure its place. The Mac OS software remains comparable (and now with Leopard cheaper for the feature set than Windows) but it was in fact the cost of the hardware that you had to buy from Apple that made is significantly more expensive than a cheap IBM compatible PC. It is similar with since OS/2 was in fact available before Windows, so I fail to see where a Windows license comes in, however IBM would happily sell you OS/2 on their workstations without having to pay for a Windows license, but again this was more expensive than the Windows alternative. But congratulations your last paragraph exemplifies why comparing it to Windows is in a sense flawed. Why do businesses like PC's? Because they were cheaper than the alternatives. But hey in a small way it seems like we're arguing over the semantics of the same point.
The reason that Windows is the most popular operating system is because at the time it was the most friendly and well known alternative available at a cheap price. The alternatives, OS/2 and Mac OS X, were both priced more than Windows. There are accounts of people buying Windows without having a computer to run it, and very many where they had a computer that wasn't capable of running it. Advertising made Windows popular and ensured its dominance once everyone learnt Windows. These days I have asked some about spending a month in Windows and then a month in Linux. They compare the two that Linux was easier to learn and work out. I'm not sure if its just that they've done Windows and getting the concepts is easier or if its that Windows has more inconsistencies (doubtful) but to state that the reason PHP is popular is because Windows is popular is a massive over simplification of the situation.
Microsoft bought high-quality products and then resold them. Large portions of Microsoft top products were written externally and bought later. Take Office, I think that Word and Excel were the only two products that MS wrote out of the entire collection. Microsoft has made its money historically by buying a product and then reselling it (e.g. DOS) with their strong backing (Halo is an interesting example of this as well though not 100% relevant).
I've noticed a similar thing, more that anything that causes heavy disk IO kills the system. More so when I've been experimenting with virtual machine implementations on the platform I've noticed heavy lag issues that I don't see on equivalent systems. Locking up a OSX box isn't too hard.
In a weird way this is rather an accurate statement. We have a few similar applications, written by the system experts (e.g. the people on the ground needing the tool) that is absolutely abhorent to maintain and manage but it does the job and our customers (internal) love it because it allows them to do what they need. There are some systems that fall apart horribly from time to time (like the one that basically rakes in our income) but the people who use it like it. Its getting slowly rewritten into better and better code now that they have real programming people working on it but the original design was a crappy VB application that did the trick. One example I like to use is Sibelius, which was made by a bunch of muso's because a better tool didn't exist and now its almost the best tool out there to do what it does. The interface is pretty trashy in places sure, but for the people who use it, it works. And that's all that matters to them.
Care about choice? Well I'd say 46% of Americans don't care about choice given in the last election they didn't vote. And that was when they _understood_ they have a choice, what I'm talking about here is the fact that people don't understand they have a choice due to the monopoly that has been created. Now I have no issues with the monopoly continuing to exist so long as people are educated about choice. The free market doesn't work when people don't think they have a choice.
Public IP addresses are a resource that is managed and cannot be bought per se. There are management fees associated in acquiring IP addresses but I believe if you show you are using them then there is no issue. Its just proper management of a limited resource, what should occur in a lot of cases but doesn't for lots of reasons. They work well together and it should be regarded that they should be together as NAT isn't a standalone solution, especially in a decent sized enterprise.
No, since the middle of the 80's (and perhaps earlier) companies have invested in creating talent on their own. Recently this is has been tied with the reality TV scene where they make money that way as well as producing talent that is locked into a record company contract (Idol, Popstars, etc). This is why there are so many small and independent labels as well as labels that consist of one band.
Well you can do stateful packet inspection if you want to pay for decent routing gear to make sure everything is doing what it should. In fact there are a whole heap of things that allow you to control a single point and give out public IPs. My university staff network used to have public IPs for some sections because they needed it. The main reason why not everyone gets public IPs is the fact that there simply isn't enough IP addresses in the v4 range to go around, with IPv6 we could easily give everyone a public IP but given Windows, the dominant operating system, really only introduces (buggy) support for IPv6 in Vista (even more primitive IPv6 was available in XP but it was harder to enable) it hasn't happened yet. Whilst I agree that there are benefits, a NAT is different to a firewall and not the tool to do the checks on data. Firewall != NAT.:)
NAT doesn't stop people sending data back it just stops people directly coming in. Since they can get out they can tunnel a way back in or sit on an IRC server or similar system and wait for commands. There are also techniques like STUN that trick a NAT system into opening a port without actually realising it. Even though you have a hard time getting things to work, people have already thought of this and have no issues working around things;)
I'm referring to desktop as in the home environment, but even then I made my point about NT4 (even went to 3.5 which came out 8 years earlier), but that means it took Windows a decade to get to 32bit on your definition. This will make the third time I've made this point. 10 years ago (1997) we didn't have desktop class 64 bit processors on the x86 platform (Itanium is the first from Intel in 2002, and AMD follow in coming to the 64bit market). Microsoft had life easy with the last transition, so 10 years to get to a 32bit CPU for NT4 workstation, how does this detract from my point that it takes a while? In any case my point on XP happens to be based on the fact that in parts NT4 still relied on 16 bit drivers, and I was giving Microsoft the line at XP as the point where 16 bit was really finalised but again I didn't mention XP in my original post because it wasn't relevant to the fact that it took at least 10 years to get to NT4.
What percentage of those understand what an operating system is and that Windows doesn't have to run their computer (or even come with it)? There are people who think Windows _is_ the computer and that you _have_ to have Windows or your computer won't work. Education is the lacking factor in the entire picture, because without education people fail to see they have a choice.
There in lies the problem: he continues to put out crappy software, incrementally improving things (compare Vista to Tiger or Ubuntu) and causing lots of pain until SP1. I have a friend who has had to use the Windows Vista restore on his laptop four times, once every month or so he's had his laptop. His current issue is the screen randomly turns black and locks up the machine. If he produced bad software and didn't succeed with it like the laws of the market say should happen then nobody would complain.
Its called in your face marketing, creating desire for the product even if you didn't realise you couldn't use it. Its well documented and tied with the expense of the alternatives (UNIX and Mac; lets just focus on expense here as opposed to quality) the cheap solution seemed like a good way for a lot of people because there are a lot of people who just look at the numbers and don't care that back in 1992 my Mac had a SCSI drive in it not IDE) when it came to development of product and up take. (The issue of differences between Unix releases is painful at times). Sure they used a whole heap of other nasty tactics, but the most effective one was marketing in my opinion.
Perhaps I just like the fact that GMail does a better job of the decidedly more email it receives than even the new AJAX powered Hotmail...and takes less time to load.
Point me to the clause? I fail to see it and I've read the document thoroughly multiple times. The license only applies on distribution. I'm welcome to license my code in any way I like unless I distribute it (then its got to be GPL) and if I don't distribute it to you, then I don't need to give you either the base code or the derivative code because you do not have the rights. Is this so hard to understand?
I was referring to the fact that the Intel 386 platform, the first one capable of 32bit from Intel, came out in 1986, almost a decade before Windows 95 and that the first native desktop operating system was actually Windows XP, but even using your Windows NT 3.5 example put its at late 1994, still 8 years. To be honest its not a jab at Microsoft per se, but a mere observation to support the later statement that the 16-bit to 32-bit transition was made easier by this fact because they could run code in 16bit mode still and also safely move to 32bit (something that having mixed 32bit/64bit environment stifles for Microsoft). The fact that Apple have consistently switched without having too many issues is perhaps something Microsoft needs to examine more closely given their present issues with 32-bit/64-bit compatibility (and Vista does fix a lot of things by breaking others).
You do realize that the G5 and latest Intel chips are all 64bit. The fact that you don't notice it or that there aren't five different versions of the operating system just to get 32bit/64bit working together nicely doesn't mean it isn't that way even if not all of the layers are full 64-bit (thats Leopard). You may or may not realize that a universal binary actually contains four binaries, one for each platform (PPC and x86) and for each word size (32 and 64 bit). The fact that every time I read about 64-bit Windows its some form of gripe (XYZ app doesn't have a native version, hacks to run in 32bit mode) and that even Microsoft documentation clearly designates a difference (why not just like "Vista XYZ Edition" instead of "Vista XYZ Edition 64-bit" if its the same) is a problem with the Microsoft platform. To be honest Apple have made transitioning between architectures a breeze, my Mac runs some PowerPC applications (like my Palm synchronization software and my TI software) without blinking. And thats PPC running on an Intel. Perhaps when Microsoft get building across the 32-bit/64-bit bridge (hey remember how long it took to get a full 32bit native desktop operating system from Windows?) it'll be smooth again. The issue for Microsoft is that when people went to 32 bit, the CPU was there in almost every machine, they were catching up. Now they're trying to push ahead and it isn't as easy as last time (Windows 95). Perhaps they should look at what Apple have done and try to copy it...again.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest for me the phone is cheaper than the alternatives i'm looking at and has all of the features i need. i still have the standard ring tone so customising that doesn't phase me one bit but each to their own
Or perhaps it was an elaborate psychological trick to ensure it got hacked. Another AC has commented that the iPhone being hacked might be what Apple wants anyway.
My grandparents have enough issues trying to work out how to call someone on their phone or pick it up from time to time, let alone advanced features such as SMS and changing the ring tone. And if they changed the ring tone they'd forget they changed it and think it was someone elses phone until nobody else picked up, realised it was theirs and try to work out which button they need to press to activate it. On that note the iPhone I feel would be less confusing: "Click the phone icon, tap the numbers, tap the big green call button". Updating the device would seem obvious that they would use the same method they already use for the iPod, namely iTunes.
Some of the issues with activating a mobile phone during flight actually had to do with multiple cells picking up the call and not dealing with the hand-over algorithm properly (in Australia anyway). The issue occurred with analogue phones which did hand overs based on signal strength. The issue is that if you're flying you can quite easily get equal line of sight to two (or more) cells which means they both pick up the phone which resulted in jamming that part of the cell network when a call came through or was made (because it'd go through two or more points and confuse the network). The Telstra solution was to terminate anything that looked like this was happening. With digital communications I believe this has been fixed, but historically activating a phone in flight has had ramifications on the ground.
Just like it took time to learn Office all those years ago when it replaced the superior WordPerfect application. But I'm going to bite that I realise it can generate simple dynamic documents with Word that interacts with database pretty easily. When it comes to a real normalized relational database Word falls over on something that should be really simple. I ran into that problem and ended up coding a quick solution in PHP to generate a PDF instead (could have used Crystal as well but I didn't have a spare license sitting around at the time). In any case doing basic invoices in word would be interesting but I guess if you're not using a fully normalized simple data set then it should have no hassles getting things right, otherwise word doesn't do relational mail merges (unlike the product it replaced, word perfect). its a fine example you've got but it doesn't work.
To be honest I use the multitouch trackpad on my Macbookpro all of the time. Two finger tap for right click, two finger drag for scrolling with the usual single finger tap for left click and single finger drag for normal drag. Multitouch in a small sense is something that I miss when I go to another laptop because I instinctively two finger tap trackpads to try to right click. No need to scroll in a special part of the track pad, no need to press a special part for left and right click. Just the gesture anywhere on the trackpad. Thats multitouch for me in action and working.
And congratulations AC you've missed my point in that PHP without any major marketing campaign came to this point overtaking other rival technologies such as Perl (no major price differential, still installed on a lot of systems even today) has become a dominant technology without even using all of those dirty underhanded methods that Microsoft used to secure its place. The Mac OS software remains comparable (and now with Leopard cheaper for the feature set than Windows) but it was in fact the cost of the hardware that you had to buy from Apple that made is significantly more expensive than a cheap IBM compatible PC. It is similar with since OS/2 was in fact available before Windows, so I fail to see where a Windows license comes in, however IBM would happily sell you OS/2 on their workstations without having to pay for a Windows license, but again this was more expensive than the Windows alternative. But congratulations your last paragraph exemplifies why comparing it to Windows is in a sense flawed. Why do businesses like PC's? Because they were cheaper than the alternatives. But hey in a small way it seems like we're arguing over the semantics of the same point.
The reason that Windows is the most popular operating system is because at the time it was the most friendly and well known alternative available at a cheap price. The alternatives, OS/2 and Mac OS X, were both priced more than Windows. There are accounts of people buying Windows without having a computer to run it, and very many where they had a computer that wasn't capable of running it. Advertising made Windows popular and ensured its dominance once everyone learnt Windows. These days I have asked some about spending a month in Windows and then a month in Linux. They compare the two that Linux was easier to learn and work out. I'm not sure if its just that they've done Windows and getting the concepts is easier or if its that Windows has more inconsistencies (doubtful) but to state that the reason PHP is popular is because Windows is popular is a massive over simplification of the situation.
Microsoft bought high-quality products and then resold them. Large portions of Microsoft top products were written externally and bought later. Take Office, I think that Word and Excel were the only two products that MS wrote out of the entire collection. Microsoft has made its money historically by buying a product and then reselling it (e.g. DOS) with their strong backing (Halo is an interesting example of this as well though not 100% relevant).
I've noticed a similar thing, more that anything that causes heavy disk IO kills the system. More so when I've been experimenting with virtual machine implementations on the platform I've noticed heavy lag issues that I don't see on equivalent systems. Locking up a OSX box isn't too hard.
In a weird way this is rather an accurate statement. We have a few similar applications, written by the system experts (e.g. the people on the ground needing the tool) that is absolutely abhorent to maintain and manage but it does the job and our customers (internal) love it because it allows them to do what they need. There are some systems that fall apart horribly from time to time (like the one that basically rakes in our income) but the people who use it like it. Its getting slowly rewritten into better and better code now that they have real programming people working on it but the original design was a crappy VB application that did the trick. One example I like to use is Sibelius, which was made by a bunch of muso's because a better tool didn't exist and now its almost the best tool out there to do what it does. The interface is pretty trashy in places sure, but for the people who use it, it works. And that's all that matters to them.
Care about choice? Well I'd say 46% of Americans don't care about choice given in the last election they didn't vote. And that was when they _understood_ they have a choice, what I'm talking about here is the fact that people don't understand they have a choice due to the monopoly that has been created. Now I have no issues with the monopoly continuing to exist so long as people are educated about choice. The free market doesn't work when people don't think they have a choice.
Public IP addresses are a resource that is managed and cannot be bought per se. There are management fees associated in acquiring IP addresses but I believe if you show you are using them then there is no issue. Its just proper management of a limited resource, what should occur in a lot of cases but doesn't for lots of reasons. They work well together and it should be regarded that they should be together as NAT isn't a standalone solution, especially in a decent sized enterprise.
No, since the middle of the 80's (and perhaps earlier) companies have invested in creating talent on their own. Recently this is has been tied with the reality TV scene where they make money that way as well as producing talent that is locked into a record company contract (Idol, Popstars, etc). This is why there are so many small and independent labels as well as labels that consist of one band.
Well you can do stateful packet inspection if you want to pay for decent routing gear to make sure everything is doing what it should. In fact there are a whole heap of things that allow you to control a single point and give out public IPs. My university staff network used to have public IPs for some sections because they needed it. The main reason why not everyone gets public IPs is the fact that there simply isn't enough IP addresses in the v4 range to go around, with IPv6 we could easily give everyone a public IP but given Windows, the dominant operating system, really only introduces (buggy) support for IPv6 in Vista (even more primitive IPv6 was available in XP but it was harder to enable) it hasn't happened yet. Whilst I agree that there are benefits, a NAT is different to a firewall and not the tool to do the checks on data. Firewall != NAT. :)
NAT doesn't stop people sending data back it just stops people directly coming in. Since they can get out they can tunnel a way back in or sit on an IRC server or similar system and wait for commands. There are also techniques like STUN that trick a NAT system into opening a port without actually realising it. Even though you have a hard time getting things to work, people have already thought of this and have no issues working around things ;)
I'm referring to desktop as in the home environment, but even then I made my point about NT4 (even went to 3.5 which came out 8 years earlier), but that means it took Windows a decade to get to 32bit on your definition. This will make the third time I've made this point. 10 years ago (1997) we didn't have desktop class 64 bit processors on the x86 platform (Itanium is the first from Intel in 2002, and AMD follow in coming to the 64bit market). Microsoft had life easy with the last transition, so 10 years to get to a 32bit CPU for NT4 workstation, how does this detract from my point that it takes a while? In any case my point on XP happens to be based on the fact that in parts NT4 still relied on 16 bit drivers, and I was giving Microsoft the line at XP as the point where 16 bit was really finalised but again I didn't mention XP in my original post because it wasn't relevant to the fact that it took at least 10 years to get to NT4.
What percentage of those understand what an operating system is and that Windows doesn't have to run their computer (or even come with it)? There are people who think Windows _is_ the computer and that you _have_ to have Windows or your computer won't work. Education is the lacking factor in the entire picture, because without education people fail to see they have a choice.
There in lies the problem: he continues to put out crappy software, incrementally improving things (compare Vista to Tiger or Ubuntu) and causing lots of pain until SP1. I have a friend who has had to use the Windows Vista restore on his laptop four times, once every month or so he's had his laptop. His current issue is the screen randomly turns black and locks up the machine. If he produced bad software and didn't succeed with it like the laws of the market say should happen then nobody would complain.
Its called in your face marketing, creating desire for the product even if you didn't realise you couldn't use it. Its well documented and tied with the expense of the alternatives (UNIX and Mac; lets just focus on expense here as opposed to quality) the cheap solution seemed like a good way for a lot of people because there are a lot of people who just look at the numbers and don't care that back in 1992 my Mac had a SCSI drive in it not IDE) when it came to development of product and up take. (The issue of differences between Unix releases is painful at times). Sure they used a whole heap of other nasty tactics, but the most effective one was marketing in my opinion.
GMail still destroys Hotmail
Perhaps I just like the fact that GMail does a better job of the decidedly more email it receives than even the new AJAX powered Hotmail...and takes less time to load.
I believe Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com) is running RoR
Point me to the clause? I fail to see it and I've read the document thoroughly multiple times. The license only applies on distribution. I'm welcome to license my code in any way I like unless I distribute it (then its got to be GPL) and if I don't distribute it to you, then I don't need to give you either the base code or the derivative code because you do not have the rights. Is this so hard to understand?
I was referring to the fact that the Intel 386 platform, the first one capable of 32bit from Intel, came out in 1986, almost a decade before Windows 95 and that the first native desktop operating system was actually Windows XP, but even using your Windows NT 3.5 example put its at late 1994, still 8 years. To be honest its not a jab at Microsoft per se, but a mere observation to support the later statement that the 16-bit to 32-bit transition was made easier by this fact because they could run code in 16bit mode still and also safely move to 32bit (something that having mixed 32bit/64bit environment stifles for Microsoft). The fact that Apple have consistently switched without having too many issues is perhaps something Microsoft needs to examine more closely given their present issues with 32-bit/64-bit compatibility (and Vista does fix a lot of things by breaking others).
You do realize that the G5 and latest Intel chips are all 64bit. The fact that you don't notice it or that there aren't five different versions of the operating system just to get 32bit/64bit working together nicely doesn't mean it isn't that way even if not all of the layers are full 64-bit (thats Leopard). You may or may not realize that a universal binary actually contains four binaries, one for each platform (PPC and x86) and for each word size (32 and 64 bit). The fact that every time I read about 64-bit Windows its some form of gripe (XYZ app doesn't have a native version, hacks to run in 32bit mode) and that even Microsoft documentation clearly designates a difference (why not just like "Vista XYZ Edition" instead of "Vista XYZ Edition 64-bit" if its the same) is a problem with the Microsoft platform. To be honest Apple have made transitioning between architectures a breeze, my Mac runs some PowerPC applications (like my Palm synchronization software and my TI software) without blinking. And thats PPC running on an Intel. Perhaps when Microsoft get building across the 32-bit/64-bit bridge (hey remember how long it took to get a full 32bit native desktop operating system from Windows?) it'll be smooth again. The issue for Microsoft is that when people went to 32 bit, the CPU was there in almost every machine, they were catching up. Now they're trying to push ahead and it isn't as easy as last time (Windows 95). Perhaps they should look at what Apple have done and try to copy it...again.