Sure I can, I just did. The specification of the machines are obviously different but as I mentioned get similar scores on most benchmarks. Obviously it is not possible to to a one to one comparison, but if both laptops score similarly with Linux, but one is drastically slower than the other when running other OSs, I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the differences can be attributed to the respective OSs.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Windows gets slower and slower with each version, maybe that indicates that making the OS faster is not exactly a priority, or maybe it is a priority, but MS engineers are incompetent. To me it does not really matter why, the results, however, are a very real concern.
At the same clock speed, a PPC chip will be far faster than an x86
Except this was not at the same clock speed. This was a 1.3 G4 vs a 1.8 P4-M (about a 30% clock speed difference) both of which get about the same scores in many benchmarks running Linux. They are pretty close to equivalent. As an aside, I'm certainly not going to install Linux on two production machines in order to do a benchmark, especially one that does not really prove anything. Perhaps you should actually read my post before commenting on it. I said two equivalent systems, and listed the processor types and clock speeds. And please don't bother digging up some sort of benchmarks, there are hundreds published, none of which agree completely. I've read them.
I think you may have missed my point. MS does not really have to do much work. The onus for making hardware work with Windows is on the hardware manufacturer. Windows obviously needs to do some work to support the basics like Intel and AMD processors, but they certainly get plenty of help form Intel and AMD when doing so. If nVivia makes a chipset, they call MS and then do whatever it takes (including writing all the driver code) in order to make it work.
On the other hand if Apple or Redhat build a system, they have to track down the specifications for hardware and write, or convince the manufacturer to write drivers for it. In many cases the hardware vendor already writes the drivers in order to expand their market. In many cases they do not. This means Apple and Redhat have a much harder task than MS as far as making hardware work in general. Sure a Packard Bell may have GodOnlyKnowsWhat in it, but MS can be sure it has Windows drivers because otherwise Packard Bell would not buy it to put in the hardware. If it does not work it certainly is not MS that is blamed.
Just because you support a smaller set of hardware does not mean it is easier to do. Especially when MS is not really tasked with the support, the hardware manufacturer is.
Yeah, but Windows is definitely slower than OS X on comparable hardware for pretty much everything. I have a 1.3 Ghz g4 laptop sitting next to a 1.8 Ghz P4-M laptop. They have similar amounts of RAM and I use many of the same applications on both of them. OS X absolutely destroys Win2k when running multiple tasks and still fares considerably better running only one task. Win XP slows down the Windows box even more (hence it is running Win2K right now). You claim OS X gets faster because the Kernel was slow to start, what then is making Windows so slow and why don't they fix whatever that is?
I know a lot of people don't want to take the time to read the article but at least read the article summary before you comment. "The site you are authenticating with never sees your username or password, just a one-time token."
OSX only has to run on 1 evolutionary line of hardware (AKA the Mac from the first with reasonable specs to the latest). Microsoft have to make windows run on ALL system set ups.
More like hardware manufacturers have to make their hardware run under Windows. MS does not code the vast majority of hardware drivers, the hardware companies do, because otherwise no one can use the hardware. MS's monopoly has largely made it much easier for them to obtain driver compatibility, Apple actually has to go out and convince hardware manufacturers to support their software as well by offering incentives or writing the drivers themselves.
Can anyone tell me what the single signon hype is all about? How is single signon any different than using the same password for multiple websites?
Well, for starters you don't have to worry about different sites knowing your username and password on other sites. If you use the same username and password on all sites a sysadmin at one site can go to another (popular) site and try all their saved userids/passwds against it and will probably get access to a number of accounts. With OpenID they get a one time token and you can have as different of userids and passwords as you want, but still have single sign-on.
I had always wondered how Media Center pays for their program guide data.
Are you kidding? I bought my PVR setup including free programming guides for about the same cost as MS Windows Media Center Edition. They should be able to pay for the programming a dozen times over just with the huge margins they are collecting on media center.
Ummm, you do realize that "not supporting" the older tags just means they'll have no effect, not that their content won't show up, right?
The variable names are shown in italic text and the keywords are in bold. Any text in red indicates a command that requires su.
Oh wait, I guess the bold, italic, and font tags don't work anymore. That will really make the document usable. You know there are literally thousands of examples like that on the internet and in documentation all around the world. Markup tags are vital, in many cases, to understanding the content.
Nope, you don't have clue, do you?
Opinionated much?
It'll work just fine.
Except the tags they use won't be supported and may or may not work (if the reviewer's wishes were to come to pass).
HTML + CSS gives them plenty of ways to do that, from the vapidly simple to the hideously complex.
Sorry without a wysiwyg editor CSS is just not as simple, especially for a novice as plain olde fashioned HTML.
Or perhaps you wish there was no choice, so those (like you perhaps?) who don't wish to put a little effort into learning their craft won't look incompetent next to those who do?
If you'd bothered to finish reading my post instead of running off at the mouth like a lackwit you would have noticed that I appreciate having both CSS and XHTML, both of which I use regularly. Not supporting plain HTML is not giving user's choice, it is railroading them into using newer formats. Choice is supporting both and luckily I don't think any browser project would be foolish enough to stop supporting the basics of HTML anytime in the next decade.
Newer, more compliant browsers, will in time not support the older tags and code;
Yeah that's a great idea. Lets just stop supporting a simple markup and make it impossible to view all the legacy HTML in existence. While we're at it let's force everyone to change to a newer, more complicated standard, even if they have no need for it.
Now I'm all for using CSS and XHTML, but that is because it makes things easier to maintain for me. Calling for browsers to stop supporting HTML, however, is taking it about three steps too far.
Ahh, I did not realize it was a problem of co-existing widgets with the same name. I haven't installed Tiger yet, as I'm still waiting for Cisco to fix their VPN client. Thanks for the clarification.
Well your configuration is a good step, it could be better. I'd recommend changing the permissions on you existing widgets so that they cannot be overwritten by a malicious version (which you would then have to find and replace).
Anyone else have trouble implementing new/better/more cost effective solutions because of Politics?
Nope. Usually it is more like, "why doesn't this work right?" Then I walk them through downloading Firefox and show them how to open multiple tabs. The next day they tell me how they can't ever go back and how much IE sucks. Then again, I mostly work with fairly intelligent people.
This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.
Lets see an obviously inferior product maintains 90% market share through leveraging another existing monopoly even thought they add basically no new features for years and despite a competitor who gives away a superior product that is written by people who are so fed up with how broken the aforementioned product is, they make it for free. Yeah, I'm sure that monopoly isn't being used unfairly and bundling has nothing to do with it. You've really opened my eyes or something.
Idiot.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
That's debatable, I'd also be surprised if any government agencies used them, use in large corporations is likely limited to the art department as well.
Heh, you're about five years behind the times. Apple is dominating in security fields to the point of being more common than Linux for desktops. Believe it or not some government agencies are smart enough not to use Windows.
After all, there's no support for the wma DRM, so you can only buy from apple's store if you want to put downloaded legal music on your ipod.
If you were Apple with a dominant position in online music sales, would you pay additional licensing fees to make a technological move that would insure the default format for music was in a proprietary format controlled and patented by your biggest competitor who already has a monopoly and that has repeatedly been convicted of using that monopoly to illegally crush competitors such as yourself?
real tried to start up an AAC shop
Real did not license the DRM scheme. They tried to strongarm Apple then use a hack to use Apple's own servers to authenticate and enforce Real's proprietary DRM all without compensating Apple. It opened Apple up to legal liability and increased support costs, all with no compensation, while benefiting their competitor. Real did not even offer to pay to license the DRM, they were just trying to pressure Apple into supporting their own dying format and DRM on the iPod.
If all Apple was interested in was selling more ipods, why not encourage third-party music stores for the ipod?
Good question. They may very well do that in the future or they may not. Supposedly they have licensed the codec to motorola and it is being included in a phone to be released any time now. They have not yet licensed it to any other music services (AFAIK). Part of the issue is that to do so they would have to deal with all the support problems as people call them because they can't get some other company's service to work.
No, apple wants to sell ipods, and they want to sell music, and they refuse to make one subservient to the other.
If you take a look at Apple's financials you'll not ethey make money on ipods, computers, and software. They are about break even on music (not including the large initial investment they put in to get it set up). It isn't about making money right now, it is about stopping MS from grabbing yet another monopoly and using it against Apple and it is about selling ipods.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
What the hell is so hard for Apple to release constructive patch fixes?
Ever worked in software development in a commercial setting? They can't give access to bug reports, versioning comments, or even source code comments without extensive editing to remove customer info. That takes a fair amount of manpower which costs time and money. Much of the code no longer applies since Apple has not integrated most of the new KDE teams changes (which mostly don't apply to their fork). The projects are diverging. It takes more and more effort from both teams to port fixes and changes. Apple needs it to run on OS X, integrate with aqua, and their developer tools. KDE needs it work in Konquerer on X. Both use a lot of UI code development hooks that are of no use to the other. Apple already comments all the code to indicate what changes don't apply to the KDE team. The last round of fixes was in small chunks with comments specifically for the KDE team. Apple has done what it can here and I imagine it is only going to get worse as the code diverges more and more. Apple has suggested that the KDE team build on WebCore since it will allow them to make use of Apple's changes easily and since Apple does not really need changes from the KDE team. There are a number of browsers based on WebCore, including at least one running on Linux. Apple has said they are open to improving the portability of WebCore and maintaining it (which is good programming practice and possibly beneficial to Apple in the long run).
Do you even have a clue as how much work the Apple Engineer is suggesting the KHTML guys do in order simply to be able to merge their changes in to WebCore?
Quite a bit, but others have already done it. The question they need to answer is "will Konquerer be better if they use WebCore and hence easily get all the changes from Apple or will it be better if they continue as they have and try to port changes from a very different codebase or just ignore the changes from Apple?"
Than in the end the KHTML developers would still be at the mercy of Apple's decisions because Apple would have complete control over the WebCore development process. So than there would need to be a fork of WebCore.
Well, the joy of open source is that you can fork and you don't have to be dependent upon Apple. If at some point WebCore moves in a direction the KDE team does not like, they can ignore it or at least follow a diverging path and only grab any changes they want and that still apply. They may be at that point now, or they may want to take Apple up on their offer to help use WebCore. The best part is, if they choose poorly, they can always change their minds later, or other developers who are coding Linux browsers based on WebCore can supersede them.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The KHTML team have (AFAIU) only limited access to the Webcore bugtracking system, with some bugs not visible at all. From the story: "[KHTML] suddenly found themselves dealing with bug reports Apple deemed too sensitive to share, new requirements for auditing code before releasing it, and demands that developers sign nondisclosure agreements before looking at some Apple code."
Most commercial companies have to deal with customer information privately and that means restricting access to versioning systems, bug databases, trouble tickets, and code comments. I know I work for a company that uses a lot of open source code in our products. That does not mean we can allow access to privileged information that inevitably finds its way into the aforementioned systems. WebCore is as open as any open source project, but that does not mean the internal workings of the company making it or their customers has to be open to public scrutiny. Apple has to do business in the real world with government agencies and large corporations.
You can't see changes as they're made, you can't track the development trunk. All you can do is take the occasional slabs of code that they release - and the whole point is that that makes it difficult to port interesting code changes into the KHTML codebase.
Even so, Apple has gone out of their way to try and make it easier, above and beyond what is required by law. Changes that are specific to Apple technologies or that effect Apple only interfaces are commented as such.
Added to which, the Safari/Webcore developers have entirely different (ie. commercial) priorities to the KHTML project.
Actually I think this is the major problem. Apple wants a flexible web library, easily accessible using their dev tools and that is usable for the general public. KDE wants a browser for technophiles. Apple needs something that runs on OS X using their own window manager, and runs quickly. KDE needs the same for KDE of course.
And the Apple developers have done another thing which makes things even more difficult for the KHTML devs to use their changes - they're using significant closed-source functionality from Mac OSX system libraries.
Gee, I can't imagine why they would have done that. KDE has used significant KDE only libraries. Both groups want them to run on their own system, that is not a surprise.
Wow, you really haven't read any of the background on this at all, have you? The KDE/KHTML team did ask (many, many times), and the Safari/Webcore team weren't willing to (or weren't allowed to) accomodate them.
That's funny I heard the acid test patches were broken up into small chunks and had comments specifically for the KDE team telling them what applied to what as far as the codebase was still the same. I also heard that the lead Apple developer was soliciting suggestions for how they could make things easier, in fact it is still up on his blog. They can't release the bug reports, nor the versioning system, but Apple is certainly trying to be a good neighbor on this one.
They would probably also be happy to answer questions and explain particular changes.
Weren't.:-)
Got any source to back that up? What particular change was asked about that Apple developers refused to answer?
They're not running an opensource project with Webcore, they're building a closed-source project (Safari) and making occasional monolithic code releases of the one major open-source component of that app (Webcore).
Bullshit. WebCore is an open source web engine and there are even several new open source browsers based upon it as well as at least one other proprietary one (Omniweb which I'm using now). There is nothing wrong with closed source applications using open source ones. It violates neither the law nor the spirit of open source.
Apple marketing trumpet Webcore as a good wholesome example of Apple contributing back to the opensource c
This is all 'friend of a friend says' sort of stuff, but word on the IRC channels is that Apple has been doing nothing but take-take-take.
Rather than relying on hear-say from IRC channels, why don't you spend 30 seconds with google and just look up all the contributions Apple has given back?
If it is the way it's being reported to me, it's kinda sad, really.
I find it even more sad that you are willing to post a comment that begins with a disclaimer about how you don't know what you're talking about but aren't willing to find out and then proceed to engage in idle speculation.
I can't imagine who modded this insightful. We really need the whole -1 factually incorrect mod.
iPod limited to apple services and formats, functionally a lockin product designed to trap users into the Apple Music Store.
iPods play MP3, AAC, WAV, MP3 VBR, Audible, and AIFF formats in addition to DRM'ed AAC files. Most users never use the iTunes music store. Also, why would Apple want to trap people using a store that they don't make any money on? You have it backwards. The store is a service they operate to make ipods more attractive.
Look and Feel. Apple has always imposed the most limits on the user's ability to customize his computer look and feel of any OS. Conformity is the Mantra at Apple. Individuality be darned.
Conformity eh, you mean like conforming to standards? Try editing the preferences of a program in Windows. What menu are they in? Answer, it depends on the program, they all put it somewhere different. Apple programs (and about 95% of third party programs for OS X) all have their preferences in the program menu and it is called preferences. All of the programs can make PDFs, from the same menu, in the same place. Can you see why that might be desirable? You don't have to hunt for things or remember different keyboard shortcuts, menu locations, menu names, etc. for different programs.
As far as look-and-feel goes, it is easy enough to change with third-party tools if you really want to, but you're right Apple discourages it. They spent a lot of time making things easy to use and don't want their systems getting a reputation for being hard to use because end users set the colors to really stupid things and put crappy bitmaps all over everything. They don't actively try to stop you, but they don't make it easy either.
Open Source. Apple plays lip services to opensource but does not give anything of signifigance back to the community. Darwin in open. Aqua is not. KHTML is open, Safari is not. On and on.
Everything Apple takes that is open source, they give back to. They publish their improvements and changes to WebCore which is what they have done with the Konquerer code. They take a different approach to things and provide a web service that all applications can use rather than just making one browser. You can write a basic browser using WebCore in about 5 minutes because all you need to add is the UI. Since the UI runs on a different window manager and rendering environment than Konquerer, the UI work is useless to them anyway. How about zeroconf? Apple wrote it and even provided a port for windows users. It is open and the protocol has been incorporated into printers, modems, routers, Tivo, etc. How about the new LaunchD daemon? It is a real improvement to a core UNIX service and not so different from the advanced schedulers used in some very expensive proprietary Server OSes. Linux can take the code and use it, or implement their own version using it as a reference. That does not include the patches they have submitted to Apache, MySQL, and dozens of other open source projects. It sounds like they are giving back to me.
Apple's image is ALL marketing spin.
Yeah, because contributing to open source is such a huge marketing fiat. Get real most people neither know or care what Open Source is and Apple sure as hell is not getting many sales by tricking the Open Source community into thinking they are helping the movement. Apple uses open source code because it works and they give back because it is in their own best interests. That is how open source works. Your view is severely myopic. Try reading some mainstream news for a change and seeing what the really real world thinks.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code. Apple just spit on their courtesy by just releasing their monolithic patches.
I'm not sure, what exactly did the KDE guys do to help Apple? Did they help them to incorporate the code into their Webcore fork of Konquerer?
Apple using Konquerer has already helped the KDE team in a number of ways. First they do have those patches to look through, in fact the acid test CSS patches from a previous article were even separately documented for the Konquerer codebase as much as possible given the divergence of the codebases. Next Apple using the Konquerer engine has made a lot of web sites compatible with Konquerer since Web designers are much more likely to test their pages against Safari than Konquerer. Also, they have advanced standardized HTML in general by promoting a browser that does not conform to either Gecko or IE's bugs and quirks.
I think it is unlikely that Apple is going to change versioning systems to make the KDE team's job easier, nor are they likely to implement changes on both browsers (even if they could which they can't since the Konquerer developers do not want to implement all of the same type of changes Apple has and don't use the same development tools or APIs). What they do, however, is provide their changes openly so that the KDE team can look through them and copy whatever fixes, improvements, or changes are useful to them. I'm sure both sets of developers are overworked and neither has enough time and both would like more people to do more for them. Maybe if the KDE developers asked for more granularity with the patches the Safari team would be willing to accommodate them. They would probably also be happy to answer questions and explain particular changes.
I guess I just don't see what anyone is mad about, and I'm not sure that anyone really is mad that is involved with Konquerer. This seems like a lot of people trying to make drama out of very little.
Stop trying to justify your copyright infringement.
Well since you don't want the previous poster to justify their copyright infringement, allow me to justify it for them. Ethically, there is no reason anyone should obey copyright laws. The laws are broken and detrimental to society. They were passed by lobbyists in collusion with greedy, corrupt politicians for the express purpose of taking your money without giving back the originally agreed upon benefits to society. If they don't give works to the public domain and provide reference copies to preserve those works for posterity, I see no reason why they should granted a monopoly to profit at our expense.
Of course all of this has little to do with the previous poster's motivation. Nevertheless it is certainly justification for breaking unjust laws.
However, the point I was making, is that as a society we still pursue monetary rewards for "ideas". In essence, by doing so, we are saying somebody "owns" that idea. Until we get past that point in societal evolution, we cannot mandate that someone give up "ownership" of their "idea" before they are ready to.
That idea is actually fairly new to the U.S. It has been a gradual change spearheaded by a small group who want to control "content" and make money through its publication. I'm not convinced that the majority of people believe that anyone can own an idea, especially when the question is framed in that way. Most people believe they can say whatever they want, just not necessarily write it down and past that they get confused.
In any case, the discussion was how we think copyright law should be written, not how it is written now in the U.S. Do you actually think it is better to have copyrights on works that are then not available to the public?
He wasn't talking about use, he was talking about visibility. On average you can see a person with white earphones in for a few hours a day. You can see a person using their cell phone for a few minutes and the rest of the time it is in their pocket. He did not take into account people who wear hands-free things all the time or wear the cellphone in a visible location. He also did not account for all the morons who talk constantly, especially while swerving randomly out of their lane while driving. I saw a car the other day with 4 people in it, all on the phone. rant rant etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't compare HW like that.
Sure I can, I just did. The specification of the machines are obviously different but as I mentioned get similar scores on most benchmarks. Obviously it is not possible to to a one to one comparison, but if both laptops score similarly with Linux, but one is drastically slower than the other when running other OSs, I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the differences can be attributed to the respective OSs.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Windows gets slower and slower with each version, maybe that indicates that making the OS faster is not exactly a priority, or maybe it is a priority, but MS engineers are incompetent. To me it does not really matter why, the results, however, are a very real concern.
At the same clock speed, a PPC chip will be far faster than an x86
Except this was not at the same clock speed. This was a 1.3 G4 vs a 1.8 P4-M (about a 30% clock speed difference) both of which get about the same scores in many benchmarks running Linux. They are pretty close to equivalent. As an aside, I'm certainly not going to install Linux on two production machines in order to do a benchmark, especially one that does not really prove anything. Perhaps you should actually read my post before commenting on it. I said two equivalent systems, and listed the processor types and clock speeds. And please don't bother digging up some sort of benchmarks, there are hundreds published, none of which agree completely. I've read them.
I think you may have missed my point. MS does not really have to do much work. The onus for making hardware work with Windows is on the hardware manufacturer. Windows obviously needs to do some work to support the basics like Intel and AMD processors, but they certainly get plenty of help form Intel and AMD when doing so. If nVivia makes a chipset, they call MS and then do whatever it takes (including writing all the driver code) in order to make it work.
On the other hand if Apple or Redhat build a system, they have to track down the specifications for hardware and write, or convince the manufacturer to write drivers for it. In many cases the hardware vendor already writes the drivers in order to expand their market. In many cases they do not. This means Apple and Redhat have a much harder task than MS as far as making hardware work in general. Sure a Packard Bell may have GodOnlyKnowsWhat in it, but MS can be sure it has Windows drivers because otherwise Packard Bell would not buy it to put in the hardware. If it does not work it certainly is not MS that is blamed.
Just because you support a smaller set of hardware does not mean it is easier to do. Especially when MS is not really tasked with the support, the hardware manufacturer is.
Yeah, but Windows is definitely slower than OS X on comparable hardware for pretty much everything. I have a 1.3 Ghz g4 laptop sitting next to a 1.8 Ghz P4-M laptop. They have similar amounts of RAM and I use many of the same applications on both of them. OS X absolutely destroys Win2k when running multiple tasks and still fares considerably better running only one task. Win XP slows down the Windows box even more (hence it is running Win2K right now). You claim OS X gets faster because the Kernel was slow to start, what then is making Windows so slow and why don't they fix whatever that is?
I know a lot of people don't want to take the time to read the article but at least read the article summary before you comment. "The site you are authenticating with never sees your username or password, just a one-time token."
OSX only has to run on 1 evolutionary line of hardware (AKA the Mac from the first with reasonable specs to the latest). Microsoft have to make windows run on ALL system set ups.
More like hardware manufacturers have to make their hardware run under Windows. MS does not code the vast majority of hardware drivers, the hardware companies do, because otherwise no one can use the hardware. MS's monopoly has largely made it much easier for them to obtain driver compatibility, Apple actually has to go out and convince hardware manufacturers to support their software as well by offering incentives or writing the drivers themselves.
Can anyone tell me what the single signon hype is all about? How is single signon any different than using the same password for multiple websites?
Well, for starters you don't have to worry about different sites knowing your username and password on other sites. If you use the same username and password on all sites a sysadmin at one site can go to another (popular) site and try all their saved userids/passwds against it and will probably get access to a number of accounts. With OpenID they get a one time token and you can have as different of userids and passwords as you want, but still have single sign-on.
I had always wondered how Media Center pays for their program guide data.
Are you kidding? I bought my PVR setup including free programming guides for about the same cost as MS Windows Media Center Edition. They should be able to pay for the programming a dozen times over just with the huge margins they are collecting on media center.
Ummm, you do realize that "not supporting" the older tags just means they'll have no effect, not that their content won't show up, right?
The variable names are shown in italic text and the keywords are in bold. Any text in red indicates a command that requires su.
Oh wait, I guess the bold, italic, and font tags don't work anymore. That will really make the document usable. You know there are literally thousands of examples like that on the internet and in documentation all around the world. Markup tags are vital, in many cases, to understanding the content.
Nope, you don't have clue, do you?
Opinionated much?
It'll work just fine.
Except the tags they use won't be supported and may or may not work (if the reviewer's wishes were to come to pass).
HTML + CSS gives them plenty of ways to do that, from the vapidly simple to the hideously complex.
Sorry without a wysiwyg editor CSS is just not as simple, especially for a novice as plain olde fashioned HTML.
Or perhaps you wish there was no choice, so those (like you perhaps?) who don't wish to put a little effort into learning their craft won't look incompetent next to those who do?
If you'd bothered to finish reading my post instead of running off at the mouth like a lackwit you would have noticed that I appreciate having both CSS and XHTML, both of which I use regularly. Not supporting plain HTML is not giving user's choice, it is railroading them into using newer formats. Choice is supporting both and luckily I don't think any browser project would be foolish enough to stop supporting the basics of HTML anytime in the next decade.
Newer, more compliant browsers, will in time not support the older tags and code;
Yeah that's a great idea. Lets just stop supporting a simple markup and make it impossible to view all the legacy HTML in existence. While we're at it let's force everyone to change to a newer, more complicated standard, even if they have no need for it.
Now I'm all for using CSS and XHTML, but that is because it makes things easier to maintain for me. Calling for browsers to stop supporting HTML, however, is taking it about three steps too far.
Ahh, I did not realize it was a problem of co-existing widgets with the same name. I haven't installed Tiger yet, as I'm still waiting for Cisco to fix their VPN client. Thanks for the clarification.
Well your configuration is a good step, it could be better. I'd recommend changing the permissions on you existing widgets so that they cannot be overwritten by a malicious version (which you would then have to find and replace).
Anyone else have trouble implementing new/better/more cost effective solutions because of Politics?
Nope. Usually it is more like, "why doesn't this work right?" Then I walk them through downloading Firefox and show them how to open multiple tabs. The next day they tell me how they can't ever go back and how much IE sucks. Then again, I mostly work with fairly intelligent people.
This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.
Lets see an obviously inferior product maintains 90% market share through leveraging another existing monopoly even thought they add basically no new features for years and despite a competitor who gives away a superior product that is written by people who are so fed up with how broken the aforementioned product is, they make it for free. Yeah, I'm sure that monopoly isn't being used unfairly and bundling has nothing to do with it. You've really opened my eyes or something.
Idiot.
That's debatable, I'd also be surprised if any government agencies used them, use in large corporations is likely limited to the art department as well.
Heh, you're about five years behind the times. Apple is dominating in security fields to the point of being more common than Linux for desktops. Believe it or not some government agencies are smart enough not to use Windows.
After all, there's no support for the wma DRM, so you can only buy from apple's store if you want to put downloaded legal music on your ipod.
If you were Apple with a dominant position in online music sales, would you pay additional licensing fees to make a technological move that would insure the default format for music was in a proprietary format controlled and patented by your biggest competitor who already has a monopoly and that has repeatedly been convicted of using that monopoly to illegally crush competitors such as yourself?
real tried to start up an AAC shop
Real did not license the DRM scheme. They tried to strongarm Apple then use a hack to use Apple's own servers to authenticate and enforce Real's proprietary DRM all without compensating Apple. It opened Apple up to legal liability and increased support costs, all with no compensation, while benefiting their competitor. Real did not even offer to pay to license the DRM, they were just trying to pressure Apple into supporting their own dying format and DRM on the iPod.
If all Apple was interested in was selling more ipods, why not encourage third-party music stores for the ipod?
Good question. They may very well do that in the future or they may not. Supposedly they have licensed the codec to motorola and it is being included in a phone to be released any time now. They have not yet licensed it to any other music services (AFAIK). Part of the issue is that to do so they would have to deal with all the support problems as people call them because they can't get some other company's service to work.
No, apple wants to sell ipods, and they want to sell music, and they refuse to make one subservient to the other.
If you take a look at Apple's financials you'll not ethey make money on ipods, computers, and software. They are about break even on music (not including the large initial investment they put in to get it set up). It isn't about making money right now, it is about stopping MS from grabbing yet another monopoly and using it against Apple and it is about selling ipods.
What the hell is so hard for Apple to release constructive patch fixes?
Ever worked in software development in a commercial setting? They can't give access to bug reports, versioning comments, or even source code comments without extensive editing to remove customer info. That takes a fair amount of manpower which costs time and money. Much of the code no longer applies since Apple has not integrated most of the new KDE teams changes (which mostly don't apply to their fork). The projects are diverging. It takes more and more effort from both teams to port fixes and changes. Apple needs it to run on OS X, integrate with aqua, and their developer tools. KDE needs it work in Konquerer on X. Both use a lot of UI code development hooks that are of no use to the other. Apple already comments all the code to indicate what changes don't apply to the KDE team. The last round of fixes was in small chunks with comments specifically for the KDE team. Apple has done what it can here and I imagine it is only going to get worse as the code diverges more and more. Apple has suggested that the KDE team build on WebCore since it will allow them to make use of Apple's changes easily and since Apple does not really need changes from the KDE team. There are a number of browsers based on WebCore, including at least one running on Linux. Apple has said they are open to improving the portability of WebCore and maintaining it (which is good programming practice and possibly beneficial to Apple in the long run).
Do you even have a clue as how much work the Apple Engineer is suggesting the KHTML guys do in order simply to be able to merge their changes in to WebCore?
Quite a bit, but others have already done it. The question they need to answer is "will Konquerer be better if they use WebCore and hence easily get all the changes from Apple or will it be better if they continue as they have and try to port changes from a very different codebase or just ignore the changes from Apple?"
Than in the end the KHTML developers would still be at the mercy of Apple's decisions because Apple would have complete control over the WebCore development process. So than there would need to be a fork of WebCore.
Well, the joy of open source is that you can fork and you don't have to be dependent upon Apple. If at some point WebCore moves in a direction the KDE team does not like, they can ignore it or at least follow a diverging path and only grab any changes they want and that still apply. They may be at that point now, or they may want to take Apple up on their offer to help use WebCore. The best part is, if they choose poorly, they can always change their minds later, or other developers who are coding Linux browsers based on WebCore can supersede them.
The KHTML team have (AFAIU) only limited access to the Webcore bugtracking system, with some bugs not visible at all. From the story: "[KHTML] suddenly found themselves dealing with bug reports Apple deemed too sensitive to share, new requirements for auditing code before releasing it, and demands that developers sign nondisclosure agreements before looking at some Apple code."
Most commercial companies have to deal with customer information privately and that means restricting access to versioning systems, bug databases, trouble tickets, and code comments. I know I work for a company that uses a lot of open source code in our products. That does not mean we can allow access to privileged information that inevitably finds its way into the aforementioned systems. WebCore is as open as any open source project, but that does not mean the internal workings of the company making it or their customers has to be open to public scrutiny. Apple has to do business in the real world with government agencies and large corporations.
You can't see changes as they're made, you can't track the development trunk. All you can do is take the occasional slabs of code that they release - and the whole point is that that makes it difficult to port interesting code changes into the KHTML codebase.
Even so, Apple has gone out of their way to try and make it easier, above and beyond what is required by law. Changes that are specific to Apple technologies or that effect Apple only interfaces are commented as such.
Added to which, the Safari/Webcore developers have entirely different (ie. commercial) priorities to the KHTML project.
Actually I think this is the major problem. Apple wants a flexible web library, easily accessible using their dev tools and that is usable for the general public. KDE wants a browser for technophiles. Apple needs something that runs on OS X using their own window manager, and runs quickly. KDE needs the same for KDE of course.
And the Apple developers have done another thing which makes things even more difficult for the KHTML devs to use their changes - they're using significant closed-source functionality from Mac OSX system libraries.
Gee, I can't imagine why they would have done that. KDE has used significant KDE only libraries. Both groups want them to run on their own system, that is not a surprise.
Wow, you really haven't read any of the background on this at all, have you? The KDE/KHTML team did ask (many, many times), and the Safari/Webcore team weren't willing to (or weren't allowed to) accomodate them.
That's funny I heard the acid test patches were broken up into small chunks and had comments specifically for the KDE team telling them what applied to what as far as the codebase was still the same. I also heard that the lead Apple developer was soliciting suggestions for how they could make things easier, in fact it is still up on his blog. They can't release the bug reports, nor the versioning system, but Apple is certainly trying to be a good neighbor on this one.
They would probably also be happy to answer questions and explain particular changes. :-)
Weren't.
Got any source to back that up? What particular change was asked about that Apple developers refused to answer?
They're not running an opensource project with Webcore, they're building a closed-source project (Safari) and making occasional monolithic code releases of the one major open-source component of that app (Webcore).
Bullshit. WebCore is an open source web engine and there are even several new open source browsers based upon it as well as at least one other proprietary one (Omniweb which I'm using now). There is nothing wrong with closed source applications using open source ones. It violates neither the law nor the spirit of open source.
Apple marketing trumpet Webcore as a good wholesome example of Apple contributing back to the opensource c
This is all 'friend of a friend says' sort of stuff, but word on the IRC channels is that Apple has been doing nothing but take-take-take.
Rather than relying on hear-say from IRC channels, why don't you spend 30 seconds with google and just look up all the contributions Apple has given back?
If it is the way it's being reported to me, it's kinda sad, really.
I find it even more sad that you are willing to post a comment that begins with a disclaimer about how you don't know what you're talking about but aren't willing to find out and then proceed to engage in idle speculation.
I can't imagine who modded this insightful. We really need the whole -1 factually incorrect mod.
iPod limited to apple services and formats, functionally a lockin product designed to trap users into the Apple Music Store.
iPods play MP3, AAC, WAV, MP3 VBR, Audible, and AIFF formats in addition to DRM'ed AAC files. Most users never use the iTunes music store. Also, why would Apple want to trap people using a store that they don't make any money on? You have it backwards. The store is a service they operate to make ipods more attractive.
Look and Feel. Apple has always imposed the most limits on the user's ability to customize his computer look and feel of any OS. Conformity is the Mantra at Apple. Individuality be darned.
Conformity eh, you mean like conforming to standards? Try editing the preferences of a program in Windows. What menu are they in? Answer, it depends on the program, they all put it somewhere different. Apple programs (and about 95% of third party programs for OS X) all have their preferences in the program menu and it is called preferences. All of the programs can make PDFs, from the same menu, in the same place. Can you see why that might be desirable? You don't have to hunt for things or remember different keyboard shortcuts, menu locations, menu names, etc. for different programs.
As far as look-and-feel goes, it is easy enough to change with third-party tools if you really want to, but you're right Apple discourages it. They spent a lot of time making things easy to use and don't want their systems getting a reputation for being hard to use because end users set the colors to really stupid things and put crappy bitmaps all over everything. They don't actively try to stop you, but they don't make it easy either.
Open Source. Apple plays lip services to opensource but does not give anything of signifigance back to the community. Darwin in open. Aqua is not. KHTML is open, Safari is not. On and on.
Everything Apple takes that is open source, they give back to. They publish their improvements and changes to WebCore which is what they have done with the Konquerer code. They take a different approach to things and provide a web service that all applications can use rather than just making one browser. You can write a basic browser using WebCore in about 5 minutes because all you need to add is the UI. Since the UI runs on a different window manager and rendering environment than Konquerer, the UI work is useless to them anyway. How about zeroconf? Apple wrote it and even provided a port for windows users. It is open and the protocol has been incorporated into printers, modems, routers, Tivo, etc. How about the new LaunchD daemon? It is a real improvement to a core UNIX service and not so different from the advanced schedulers used in some very expensive proprietary Server OSes. Linux can take the code and use it, or implement their own version using it as a reference. That does not include the patches they have submitted to Apache, MySQL, and dozens of other open source projects. It sounds like they are giving back to me.
Apple's image is ALL marketing spin.
Yeah, because contributing to open source is such a huge marketing fiat. Get real most people neither know or care what Open Source is and Apple sure as hell is not getting many sales by tricking the Open Source community into thinking they are helping the movement. Apple uses open source code because it works and they give back because it is in their own best interests. That is how open source works. Your view is severely myopic. Try reading some mainstream news for a change and seeing what the really real world thinks.
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code. Apple just spit on their courtesy by just releasing their monolithic patches.
I'm not sure, what exactly did the KDE guys do to help Apple? Did they help them to incorporate the code into their Webcore fork of Konquerer?
Apple using Konquerer has already helped the KDE team in a number of ways. First they do have those patches to look through, in fact the acid test CSS patches from a previous article were even separately documented for the Konquerer codebase as much as possible given the divergence of the codebases. Next Apple using the Konquerer engine has made a lot of web sites compatible with Konquerer since Web designers are much more likely to test their pages against Safari than Konquerer. Also, they have advanced standardized HTML in general by promoting a browser that does not conform to either Gecko or IE's bugs and quirks.
I think it is unlikely that Apple is going to change versioning systems to make the KDE team's job easier, nor are they likely to implement changes on both browsers (even if they could which they can't since the Konquerer developers do not want to implement all of the same type of changes Apple has and don't use the same development tools or APIs). What they do, however, is provide their changes openly so that the KDE team can look through them and copy whatever fixes, improvements, or changes are useful to them. I'm sure both sets of developers are overworked and neither has enough time and both would like more people to do more for them. Maybe if the KDE developers asked for more granularity with the patches the Safari team would be willing to accommodate them. They would probably also be happy to answer questions and explain particular changes.
I guess I just don't see what anyone is mad about, and I'm not sure that anyone really is mad that is involved with Konquerer. This seems like a lot of people trying to make drama out of very little.
Stop trying to justify your copyright infringement.
Well since you don't want the previous poster to justify their copyright infringement, allow me to justify it for them. Ethically, there is no reason anyone should obey copyright laws. The laws are broken and detrimental to society. They were passed by lobbyists in collusion with greedy, corrupt politicians for the express purpose of taking your money without giving back the originally agreed upon benefits to society. If they don't give works to the public domain and provide reference copies to preserve those works for posterity, I see no reason why they should granted a monopoly to profit at our expense.
Of course all of this has little to do with the previous poster's motivation. Nevertheless it is certainly justification for breaking unjust laws.
However, the point I was making, is that as a society we still pursue monetary rewards for "ideas". In essence, by doing so, we are saying somebody "owns" that idea. Until we get past that point in societal evolution, we cannot mandate that someone give up "ownership" of their "idea" before they are ready to.
That idea is actually fairly new to the U.S. It has been a gradual change spearheaded by a small group who want to control "content" and make money through its publication. I'm not convinced that the majority of people believe that anyone can own an idea, especially when the question is framed in that way. Most people believe they can say whatever they want, just not necessarily write it down and past that they get confused.
In any case, the discussion was how we think copyright law should be written, not how it is written now in the U.S. Do you actually think it is better to have copyrights on works that are then not available to the public?
But seriously, do you have any idea how large a warehouse it would take to house a copy of every copyrighted publication?
It's called a library, not a warehouse and I can think of worse things to do with our tax dollars than add on to the Library of Congress again.
He wasn't talking about use, he was talking about visibility. On average you can see a person with white earphones in for a few hours a day. You can see a person using their cell phone for a few minutes and the rest of the time it is in their pocket. He did not take into account people who wear hands-free things all the time or wear the cellphone in a visible location. He also did not account for all the morons who talk constantly, especially while swerving randomly out of their lane while driving. I saw a car the other day with 4 people in it, all on the phone. rant rant etc.