Obviously, Microsoft's player will suck. But I hope it doesn't suck TOO badly, just enough to get some real competition going. iPod needs WiFi, it's the obvious thing it lacks (both for connecting to the host PC and for streaming songs to an Airport Express, etc). Bigger screen -well, whatever, for me that's not an issue, as I don't want to watch movies on an iPod type device - it's bad enough on a TV.
Likewise, if Apple feel that the iTMS is coming under some genuine strain, it might prompt them to open it up a bit more, drop prices - whatever it takes to stay ahead. That's assuming that the competing services can truly compete, and don't have their hands ultimately tied by the music industry.
IMHO it is indeed the source of all these Carbon perception problems because even Greg Dow himself realized that he could not retrofit a lot of OS X features (e.g. Services support, support for NIB views) into his framework.
Fair comment. As the author of a C++ framework based on Carbon myself (MacZoop, which was much smaller in scope than PP and never intended to compete with it) I know just how much work I had to do to keep the framework viable on OS X. In my case many of my controls and views were home-rolled and so were less of a hostage to fortune as far as toolbox changes were concerned, but nevertheless it was hard work. That said, I found adopting services straightforward because I already had Cocoa-like classes to abstract the clipboard, so adding that in was trivial. Likewise HFS+ and some other newer technologies. Not so trivial was NIB support, which I never did end up supporting - in fact it's probably the one thing that finally killed my framework because the resource-based approach it did take (in common with PP) was becoming daily more problematic. That and the fact that even if I could have matched Cocoa feature-for-feature, writing Cocoa apps is still much easier because of the way Objective-C works which is much more productive and straightforward than C++. I came to realise that C++ is a language-fetishists language, whereas Objective-C may not tick all the CS boxes, but it's a very practical, workmanlike way to actually get stuff done.
Unfortunately, most users associate Carbon with all those ported ("carbonized") OS 9 C++ applications written on top of Metrowerks' PowerPlant, so it makes sense Carbon has a bad rap, but the fact is: Carbon is not the issue here. Carbon's fine.
Carbon's fine, until you actually bother to learn Cocoa. The fact is, religion about this aside, Cocoa is just better. As in 10,000% more productive better. The fact that apps also tend to look better is not a reflection of Carbon per se, but it is a reflection of just how much work you have to do in Carbon to makes things come out right. I'd rather spend time on making the app functional rather than endlessly tweaking the widgets. I came from the Toolbox, then Carbon, and now Cocoa, so I know of what I speak.
However, I disagree that PowerPlant is the cause of a lot of problems, because in many ways PP was the Cocoa of its day, Mac-wise (ignoring the fact that Cocoa has existed in some form since 1987, just not on the Mac). Using a framework on top of Carbon is the only sensible way to program with Carbon - anything other than a small app is unmanageable in Carbon if you don't have a framework there. What may be a source of this perception is that between System 8.0 and 10.0, Apple changed a lot about the organisation of the Toolbox/Carbon and PP may have struggled to keep up with that. It was a tough period all round.
I'd like to see the Finder written in Cocoa, because it would likely be a lot more functional since getting functionality together in a Cocoa app just takes much less effort than the same functionality in Carbon. Given that Apple seems to want to throw a Finder together I'm sure it would be a lot more polished in the same timeframe if constructed in Cocoa.
If they lost that image, I'd certainly consider a mac of some sort
So, basically you choose your computer on the basis of its marketing image, rather than any serious look at what it can actually do, or how it works. You realise how lame that is? Still, it is certainly this sort of attitude that has handed Microsoft its 90%+ market share, so you're not alone.
Even if it weren't for the fact that this was announced, what, a week ago, it doesn't take a genius to realise that Apple will talk about their next OS at the forthcoming WWDC. It's what they've always done. Duh, that's what it's FOR. And those who care will know about it, and those who don't will ignore it. Just like THEY'VE always done. Fuck me, Slashdot gets lamer every day with shit "stories" like this. And I speak as a nominal Mac fan.
Apparently, eating Marmite (Vegemite in Australia) helps make one's blood less palatable to Mosquitoes (maybe it's the high levels of vitamin B), so they'll pick on someone else. Does the USA have this wonder food? I'd like to know if this is a myth or not - one for Adam and Jamie I should think!
Plus a non standard filesystem layout. That IMO makes it unnecessarily harder to use for unix people. And its not like the Macs tradition user base is ever going to delve into the command line filesystem so I'm not 100% why they had to mess about with the layout compared to "normal" unix or linux.
Well, apart from the obvious comment that Unix filesystems in themselves are rarely "standard", there are good reasons. One of them has to do with making OS X familiar to Classic Mac users, so part of the filesystem layout is to do with that. Other features such as personal web sharing which require some config changes to Apache are great improvements for the average user - it allows them to dump files in a folder, click a checkbox and hey-presto! a working website. Another example is applications that can be run from anywhere, more or less. That's what Mac users expect (and quite rightly).
It's exactly because the average Mac user probably won't be delving into the comand line that Apple are reasonably free to move stuff around to make the system easier to use for the average person. Unix geeks are smart enough to figure out the differences if they need to.
People are saying this isn't new, it was tested by NASA in the 1980s following research in the 1970s. Well, IIRC, It was Barnes Wallis who developed this concept for supersonic aircraft in the 1950s. He was British, which I guess is why you 'mericans pathologically overlook his work. In fact if it wasn't for the Brits handing over all their supersonic research as part of a post-war deal (fair enough I guess, we needed your money to rebuild our country and the rest of Europe), you probably would have been beaten to the punch for breaking the sound barrier in the first place.
Mind you, BW was against the TSR-2 and so lent a lot of clout the US argument against that effort, so he's got some brownie points against him in my book. But that's an argument for another day.
People complain or at least refer to Steve Jobs' RDF, but the real RDF is the one that Microsoft surrounds itself with. The problem is, they got very, very lucky in a very big way, once, with early versions of Windows. They've cashed in on it ever since. They now think that as a company they have some sort of Midas touch, and that everything they copy will turn to gold. In a way, it does because the public are too stupid to notice that in fact what they do sucks. However, the public is slowly starting to realise that better stuff is out there, and that the way MS do business is really pretty shabby, and that they don't have to accept it. As soon as people start to say 'no' and go with any of the many viable alternatives out there, MS's RDF will collapse around their ears. I for one can't wait to see it happen, and if I'm sure I'll forgiven for a little inward smile of pleasure as it does.
This is just one more example of MS swallowing their own hype. They think they are good at what they do but they're not - they are just aggressive, lucky and unpleasant and that's how they got to be top dog in one area for a short time. It can't and won't last. History shows that hubris rarely lasts long.
try Improvision . Originally Mac only though their current flagship product is PC and Mac. Apple spent their entire 2002 science marketing budget on this one product (Volocity). I don't kow how their sales break down PC/Mac wise these days, but once upon a time it was a Mac-based turnkey system with every sale. (Disclaimer: I used to work there)
How do you know? Only one alternative has ever been tried on a large scale - communism. Yes, it's probably less bad than communism, but is it less bad than ANY of the possibly thousands of untried alternatives? It's very easy to think up any number of better options, or if you lack imagination, there have been many proposed by writers and thinkers throughout history.
Why not? It's because it wasn't designed by a computer geek (or anyone/thing else) where you might have said, hrmmm, we need about 30,000 genes for this design, so we'll split that into 26 chromosomes of 1,154 genes apiece. That should do it!
The fact is, we evolved, and so our components are just bits and pieces taken from all our previous ancestors, modified according to whatever was needed to suit the environment we happened to find ourselves in at the time. As with all natural, biological, dynamic processes, what emerges is often bizarrely disorganised, yet somehow works.
sympathisers* like you
Show me where I said I sympathised. I don't; I merely said that communism isn't the big bad bogeyman that it was portrayed as, and some still appear to believe. I said it was unworkable, and so it is, since it fails to account for man's inability to control his own "will to power".
If you think capitalism is the answer, it is you who needs to stop smoking whatever anaesthetic you're on and wake up. People are no happier than they were 50 years ago, just richer and poorer. Those in power tell us it's so superior, but the only real difference is that they are clever enough to distract us with shiny baubles instead of beating us with a stick. Still, no doubt you're happy with that, being one of the rich. So there's no need to care about the human condition in general. You got your iPod, you can drown out the noise of the rest of the world asking for "just a tiny little bit more for us please".
To get back on topic: Yes we have 'unfettered capitalism', the RIAA is a prime example. What benefit does it confer on anyone but a few rich executives who already have plenty? Who is going to do anything about it? The government? Don't make me laugh. As they are clearly prepared to send fit young men to die for a few barrels of oil, you can see where their loyalties and morals lie. That's 'unfettered' in my book. I cannot believe I'm being attacked for holding the view that mankind deserves a little more equity (like it's an arguable position) - but go ahead, attack - see how it makes you look.
You're confusing the implementation with the ideology. Not that the ideology is really workable, but it is at least nothing to fear; Stalin's and Mao's interpretations however... But McCarthyism was about making people fear the ideology per se. The result of the blind fear of something misunderstood is to drive people to the opposite side - and look, unfettered capitalism! Thank god for that, otherwise we wouldn't have achieved the universal happiness and equity that we have. Damn those commies! Oh wait...
You misspelled "capitalist".
Either that or you still believe all that 50s McCarthyist crap about reds under the bed. Wake up, communism is nothing to fear, nor ever was.
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew.
I hope that was sarcasm although it does not convey well over the internet.
Yes it does. Try reading a few examples of better English than the shit that gets passed off as it on the 'net. Like... books? There are subtler clues than having to have lame "sarcasm tags" or even worse, "emoticons". For fuck's sake.
Cellphones don't triangulate the towers or vice versa. They simply monitor the signal strength, and pick whichever is strongest once the current signal level deteriorates below a certain threshold. This means that in densely covered areas, your phone may not even be using the nearest tower, as long as the one it is using is giving good enough reception. The system avoids switching cells if it doesn't need to.
There are many things out there to learn about besides computers, networks, and hard science
True, but then there are many more things that would still allow you to be "intellectually curious" apart from these. Examples might include literature, art, philosophy, music, to name just a few "big" topics. I doubt that creative people could be counted as among the non-intellectually curious, usually you have to be in that bracket to be creative. Sitting in front of a TV set isn't creative, though nor is reading a book - though the latter is more likely to make you think.
What's so tragic about these figures is that most people are born intellectually curious, and the system that is their parents, their school, their peers and their environment bleed them dry of it, often by the time they are only 7 or 8 years old. Something is very, very wrong with this.
In Britain, A Boob Tube is an article of clothing. It consists of a cylinder of elastic material and is (or was, having now gone very much out of fashion) worn by women and girls as a top. In other words, it's a tube that covers the boobs. The American use of this phrase always sounds bizarre to me - I mean, why boob, in that context?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, Microsoft's player will suck. But I hope it doesn't suck TOO badly, just enough to get some real competition going. iPod needs WiFi, it's the obvious thing it lacks (both for connecting to the host PC and for streaming songs to an Airport Express, etc). Bigger screen -well, whatever, for me that's not an issue, as I don't want to watch movies on an iPod type device - it's bad enough on a TV.
Likewise, if Apple feel that the iTMS is coming under some genuine strain, it might prompt them to open it up a bit more, drop prices - whatever it takes to stay ahead. That's assuming that the competing services can truly compete, and don't have their hands ultimately tied by the music industry.
IMHO it is indeed the source of all these Carbon perception problems because even Greg Dow himself realized that he could not retrofit a lot of OS X features (e.g. Services support, support for NIB views) into his framework.
Fair comment. As the author of a C++ framework based on Carbon myself (MacZoop, which was much smaller in scope than PP and never intended to compete with it) I know just how much work I had to do to keep the framework viable on OS X. In my case many of my controls and views were home-rolled and so were less of a hostage to fortune as far as toolbox changes were concerned, but nevertheless it was hard work. That said, I found adopting services straightforward because I already had Cocoa-like classes to abstract the clipboard, so adding that in was trivial. Likewise HFS+ and some other newer technologies. Not so trivial was NIB support, which I never did end up supporting - in fact it's probably the one thing that finally killed my framework because the resource-based approach it did take (in common with PP) was becoming daily more problematic. That and the fact that even if I could have matched Cocoa feature-for-feature, writing Cocoa apps is still much easier because of the way Objective-C works which is much more productive and straightforward than C++. I came to realise that C++ is a language-fetishists language, whereas Objective-C may not tick all the CS boxes, but it's a very practical, workmanlike way to actually get stuff done.
Unfortunately, most users associate Carbon with all those ported ("carbonized") OS 9 C++ applications written on top of Metrowerks' PowerPlant, so it makes sense Carbon has a bad rap, but the fact is: Carbon is not the issue here. Carbon's fine.
Carbon's fine, until you actually bother to learn Cocoa. The fact is, religion about this aside, Cocoa is just better. As in 10,000% more productive better. The fact that apps also tend to look better is not a reflection of Carbon per se, but it is a reflection of just how much work you have to do in Carbon to makes things come out right. I'd rather spend time on making the app functional rather than endlessly tweaking the widgets. I came from the Toolbox, then Carbon, and now Cocoa, so I know of what I speak.
However, I disagree that PowerPlant is the cause of a lot of problems, because in many ways PP was the Cocoa of its day, Mac-wise (ignoring the fact that Cocoa has existed in some form since 1987, just not on the Mac). Using a framework on top of Carbon is the only sensible way to program with Carbon - anything other than a small app is unmanageable in Carbon if you don't have a framework there. What may be a source of this perception is that between System 8.0 and 10.0, Apple changed a lot about the organisation of the Toolbox/Carbon and PP may have struggled to keep up with that. It was a tough period all round.
I'd like to see the Finder written in Cocoa, because it would likely be a lot more functional since getting functionality together in a Cocoa app just takes much less effort than the same functionality in Carbon. Given that Apple seems to want to throw a Finder together I'm sure it would be a lot more polished in the same timeframe if constructed in Cocoa.
If they lost that image, I'd certainly consider a mac of some sort
So, basically you choose your computer on the basis of its marketing image, rather than any serious look at what it can actually do, or how it works. You realise how lame that is? Still, it is certainly this sort of attitude that has handed Microsoft its 90%+ market share, so you're not alone.
Even if it weren't for the fact that this was announced, what, a week ago, it doesn't take a genius to realise that Apple will talk about their next OS at the forthcoming WWDC. It's what they've always done. Duh, that's what it's FOR. And those who care will know about it, and those who don't will ignore it. Just like THEY'VE always done. Fuck me, Slashdot gets lamer every day with shit "stories" like this. And I speak as a nominal Mac fan.
Apparently, eating Marmite (Vegemite in Australia) helps make one's blood less palatable to Mosquitoes (maybe it's the high levels of vitamin B), so they'll pick on someone else. Does the USA have this wonder food? I'd like to know if this is a myth or not - one for Adam and Jamie I should think!
Plus a non standard filesystem layout. That IMO makes it unnecessarily harder to
use for unix people. And its not like the Macs tradition user base is ever going to
delve into the command line filesystem so I'm not 100% why they had to mess about
with the layout compared to "normal" unix or linux.
Well, apart from the obvious comment that Unix filesystems in themselves are rarely "standard", there are good reasons. One of them has to do with making OS X familiar to Classic Mac users, so part of the filesystem layout is to do with that. Other features such as personal web sharing which require some config changes to Apache are great improvements for the average user - it allows them to dump files in a folder, click a checkbox and hey-presto! a working website. Another example is applications that can be run from anywhere, more or less. That's what Mac users expect (and quite rightly).
It's exactly because the average Mac user probably won't be delving into the comand line that Apple are reasonably free to move stuff around to make the system easier to use for the average person. Unix geeks are smart enough to figure out the differences if they need to.
Nor are information theory, computer science, and complexity theory being applied to natural, especially living, systems. Why not?
Errr, yes they are. See this month's Scientific American for a start. This is in fact becoming a hot topic in life sciences.
People are saying this isn't new, it was tested by NASA in the 1980s following research in the 1970s. Well, IIRC, It was Barnes Wallis who developed this concept for supersonic aircraft in the 1950s. He was British, which I guess is why you 'mericans pathologically overlook his work. In fact if it wasn't for the Brits handing over all their supersonic research as part of a post-war deal (fair enough I guess, we needed your money to rebuild our country and the rest of Europe), you probably would have been beaten to the punch for breaking the sound barrier in the first place.
Mind you, BW was against the TSR-2 and so lent a lot of clout the US argument against that effort, so he's got some brownie points against him in my book. But that's an argument for another day.
People complain or at least refer to Steve Jobs' RDF, but the real RDF is the one that Microsoft surrounds itself with. The problem is, they got very, very lucky in a very big way, once, with early versions of Windows. They've cashed in on it ever since. They now think that as a company they have some sort of Midas touch, and that everything they copy will turn to gold. In a way, it does because the public are too stupid to notice that in fact what they do sucks. However, the public is slowly starting to realise that better stuff is out there, and that the way MS do business is really pretty shabby, and that they don't have to accept it. As soon as people start to say 'no' and go with any of the many viable alternatives out there, MS's RDF will collapse around their ears. I for one can't wait to see it happen, and if I'm sure I'll forgiven for a little inward smile of pleasure as it does.
This is just one more example of MS swallowing their own hype. They think they are good at what they do but they're not - they are just aggressive, lucky and unpleasant and that's how they got to be top dog in one area for a short time. It can't and won't last. History shows that hubris rarely lasts long.
try Improvision . Originally Mac only though their current flagship product is PC and Mac. Apple spent their entire 2002 science marketing budget on this one product (Volocity). I don't kow how their sales break down PC/Mac wise these days, but once upon a time it was a Mac-based turnkey system with every sale. (Disclaimer: I used to work there)
it's less bad than the alternatives
How do you know? Only one alternative has ever been tried on a large scale - communism. Yes, it's probably less bad than communism, but is it less bad than ANY of the possibly thousands of untried alternatives? It's very easy to think up any number of better options, or if you lack imagination, there have been many proposed by writers and thinkers throughout history.
Of course I meant 46 chromosomes...
Actually if it was designed by a computer geek, no doubt there would be 32,768 total genes and 32 chromosomes, with 1,024 genes per chromosome.
Why do one chromosone have more genes than others
Why not? It's because it wasn't designed by a computer geek (or anyone/thing else) where you might have said, hrmmm, we need about 30,000 genes for this design, so we'll split that into 26 chromosomes of 1,154 genes apiece. That should do it!
The fact is, we evolved, and so our components are just bits and pieces taken from all our previous ancestors, modified according to whatever was needed to suit the environment we happened to find ourselves in at the time. As with all natural, biological, dynamic processes, what emerges is often bizarrely disorganised, yet somehow works.
sympathisers* like you
Show me where I said I sympathised. I don't; I merely said that communism isn't the big bad bogeyman that it was portrayed as, and some still appear to believe. I said it was unworkable, and so it is, since it fails to account for man's inability to control his own "will to power".
If you think capitalism is the answer, it is you who needs to stop smoking whatever anaesthetic you're on and wake up. People are no happier than they were 50 years ago, just richer and poorer. Those in power tell us it's so superior, but the only real difference is that they are clever enough to distract us with shiny baubles instead of beating us with a stick. Still, no doubt you're happy with that, being one of the rich. So there's no need to care about the human condition in general. You got your iPod, you can drown out the noise of the rest of the world asking for "just a tiny little bit more for us please".
To get back on topic: Yes we have 'unfettered capitalism', the RIAA is a prime example. What benefit does it confer on anyone but a few rich executives who already have plenty? Who is going to do anything about it? The government? Don't make me laugh. As they are clearly prepared to send fit young men to die for a few barrels of oil, you can see where their loyalties and morals lie. That's 'unfettered' in my book. I cannot believe I'm being attacked for holding the view that mankind deserves a little more equity (like it's an arguable position) - but go ahead, attack - see how it makes you look.
You're confusing the implementation with the ideology. Not that the ideology is really workable, but it is at least nothing to fear; Stalin's and Mao's interpretations however... But McCarthyism was about making people fear the ideology per se. The result of the blind fear of something misunderstood is to drive people to the opposite side - and look, unfettered capitalism! Thank god for that, otherwise we wouldn't have achieved the universal happiness and equity that we have. Damn those commies! Oh wait...
... communist bastards...
You misspelled "capitalist". Either that or you still believe all that 50s McCarthyist crap about reds under the bed. Wake up, communism is nothing to fear, nor ever was.
Yes, I do realise it was Mandy Rice-Davies, so don't bother telling me.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
I'm just relieved that the battle of two bazillion dollar companies turned out well. Phew. I hope that was sarcasm although it does not convey well over the internet.
Yes it does. Try reading a few examples of better English than the shit that gets passed off as it on the 'net. Like... books? There are subtler clues than having to have lame "sarcasm tags" or even worse, "emoticons". For fuck's sake.
triangulation via cellphone towers
Cellphones don't triangulate the towers or vice versa. They simply monitor the signal strength, and pick whichever is strongest once the current signal level deteriorates below a certain threshold. This means that in densely covered areas, your phone may not even be using the nearest tower, as long as the one it is using is giving good enough reception. The system avoids switching cells if it doesn't need to.
Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax
Errr... nope. VAT came in in 1973, long before Her Maggiesty.
There are many things out there to learn about besides computers, networks, and hard science
True, but then there are many more things that would still allow you to be "intellectually curious" apart from these. Examples might include literature, art, philosophy, music, to name just a few "big" topics. I doubt that creative people could be counted as among the non-intellectually curious, usually you have to be in that bracket to be creative. Sitting in front of a TV set isn't creative, though nor is reading a book - though the latter is more likely to make you think.
What's so tragic about these figures is that most people are born intellectually curious, and the system that is their parents, their school, their peers and their environment bleed them dry of it, often by the time they are only 7 or 8 years old. Something is very, very wrong with this.
Dvorak != Dvorak keyboard layout
And, for the record, he didn't write the "New World Symphony" either.
In Britain, A Boob Tube is an article of clothing. It consists of a cylinder of elastic material and is (or was, having now gone very much out of fashion) worn by women and girls as a top. In other words, it's a tube that covers the boobs. The American use of this phrase always sounds bizarre to me - I mean, why boob, in that context?