This is clearly aimed at - once again - making fools out of Slashdot readers. Doesn't *anyone* verify anything before posting a submission or posting a rant? What a bunch of buffoons. This place has gotten worse than the Usenet.
I especially like the ass who says that based on this article he's buying a Vaio over a PowerBook. Excellent research on which to base your decision...you tool.
WWF Replaces Electoral College
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Instead of using some kind of electronic ballot, simply turn over control of electing our next president to the WWF (Wrestling Federation, not Wildlife Fund). Just have a big 'ol tag-team cage match. In this particular case, we could make it even *more* interesting by having Nader be the referee.
'Course, I guess Jesse Ventura would pretty much take it in '04, but maybe that's just what this country needs/deserves.
No, Netscape and IE are the real source of the problem. If they hadn't both tried to develop an "embrace and extend" approach to html and had evolved along with standards, then your situation wouldn't be so bad today.
<p>
Of course, you are using cutting-edge technology that isn't really guaranteed to work, so you really shouldn't be bitching about it. And the reality is that not that many people are going to develop for your platform for the foreseeable future. So maybe you want to pass along a request to the Proxiweb makers that their browser gracefully decode these "pixel-positioned" sites. I mean, what's so freakin' difficult about that?
I, for one, think this is a great idea. For those who doubt the usefulness of this, think of it in terms of original sources. In other words, most of the history we read is - to varying extents - revisionary. Having access to the immediate reactions of folks at the time would do a lot to minimize the impact of this. While you would still have to deal with the immediate revisionism inserted by the respective news agency(ies), this becomes less important as other news sources undertake the same project.
For example, consider the Vietnam conflict. Much has been written about this episode in US history, and much of what's been written reflects the author's personal or institutional agenda. What if we had access not only to the original Walter Cronkite newscasts, but also to BBC, French, Chinese, and Vietnamese daily television broadcasts for the same period? Or even an open-source archive of reporting from individuals (something like that described in "Mother of Storms" by John Barnes) I think something like this is a good first step towards removing the (often-unwanted) mediation that is so prevalent in modern culture.
Someone else mentioned the Gargoyles in Stephenson's "Snow Crash" who constantly uploaded everything to the Library of Congress and were paid by access. I say this is an excellent proposition, but privatize it and make a million. As television and video become part of the historical record, it's high time we stopped seeing these records as ephemera and begin giving them the respect they deserve. Even if they are stilted and mediated, they reflect current viewpoints and attitudes, just as blackface minstrels did in just over a century ago.
Why would X running under MOSX be any more of a threat than Linux running on the PowerPC? I think the previous poster hit the nail on the head - there is a significant difference in skill set.
The majority of Mac users don't give a damn about the techy details slashdotters hold so near and dear - they just want to get their email, surf the web, print pictures of their newest nephew, and maybe edit a newsletter or two. Without crashing. Whatever gets them that is fine.
I can't see masses of Mac users suddenly moving over to a platform that requires so much more of them simply because python is available. Remember - MacOS 9 already offers power tools (perl, AppleScript, Webstar server) - but *very* few Mac users ever delve into them.
Actually, all that good scripting power is already there in the default install. Well, at least TCL is for sure, I beleive Perl is as well. Even if it isn't, you can install it with very little hassle and run it from the included terminal window. And the remote control (ie: telnet, ftp) is disabled by default, but is extremely simple to activate. Voila - both of your "biggest failures" removed. 'Course, MOSX isn't a non-unix OS...it's a non-XWindows OS.
You don't need XWindows to run the overwhelming majority of these scripts. About the biggest limitation I've found so far is the inability to run TK. It'd be a bear for someone to port,
The previous poster is right - Aqua is just a theme. But if you substitute MacOS X for Aqua...you're still wrong.
It's kinda like saying Netscape Navigator runs under Windows, and Microsoft Office runs under Windows, so that implies Microsoft Office on Netscape Navigator.
Yes, I do think that Apple can compete against MS without Open Source. Apple has been successfully competing against MS even back when most Open Source developers were getting their first hot wheel cars. Literally.
<p>
I hate idiots like this who have no sense of 5 or 10 years ago. What do people like this make of history? "Lincoln was....ummmm....some dude, right? He did something important?"
Ahh, finally a voice of reason. I agree that the overwhelming majority of folks who bitch and moan about companies not releasing "free" software simply like getting something for nothing - they never contribute their time or money.
TAANSTAFL - but so many Slahdot readers simply jump on the backs of the hardworking and talented out there and dare to complain when someone asks them to give something back that the edifice of free software is starting to creak under their weight.
Jesus. Why is this world so full of people who can't see beyond their own noses?
First - I'll wager you've never *used* an iBook for longer than 5 minutes. If you had, you'd find that the display is quite nice.
Second - Many people want a laptop that only does 800x600. Obviously, as the iBook has been selling rather briskly. Ask yourself this: What would the iBook target market be doing that *requires* more than 800x600? And if they really need to do that, why wouldn't they be in a position to spend the additional $ for a machine that gives them that screen rez? For that matter, what comparably-priced laptop has a bigger screen?
Third - You obviously do not do graphics work and are unfamiliar with Macs generally. I am both. The iBook is not geared towards doing graphics work, but rather as an entry-level machine for college students. (Not geek college students, but normals). Machines such as the G3 PowerBook and G4 tower are machines geared towards graphic professionals. Any graphic designer who buys an iBook as their primary machine is a fool who probably has a history of using the wrong tool for a job.
Please folks, keep your ignorance a private matter.
I definitely agree concerning the iBook - if 12" screen is too small for you, fork over the cash for a full Powerboook and don't blame the iBook. It's placement is for entry-level laptop owners (Who'd have thought there even was such a thing?).
But because I own both a PowerBook and an iBook, I can tell you that the screen issue isn't a big one. If you're using Photoshop, Quark, Director, or GoLive/DreamWeaver (ie: *Designer* tools) then you don't want an iBook - you need the bigger screen.
If however, you're using email, websurfing, writing an occasional article/memo/paper, or even writing some simple code, the iBook running at 800x600 is plenty big enough. I suspect that it's plenty for running LinuxPPC or YDL. Big screens are nice, but unless you're able to pay for them they're a potential waste on laptops - by giving up a little screen real estate you can save yourself major bucks. This is true for *all* laptops, not just Apple's offerings.
> (note that I don't agree with their decision and would
> never deploy the non-Unix Mac OS for any production
> network server - also note that their assumption isn't
> even correct, because AppleScript is quite comparable
> to the Bourne shell and *can* be remotely invoked in
> some cases).
This post was written by a hack with just enough understanding of the MacOS and AppleScript to screw it up.
While it is theoretically possible to enable remote access of AppleScript, this is not a trivial thing to do (ie: your average Mac user will have trouble enabling this feature) and it is *not* (repeat NOT) on by default. Additionally, saying that AppleScript is comparable to the Bourne shell is a crock of shit. For better or worse, the Bourne shell has far more power than AppleScript does. AppleScript is more along the lines of TCL than a shell.
However, I definitely agree with his assertion that it is silly to run a production server on the MacOS. I run servers on MacOS (backwards compatibility), WinNT (ditto), Linux (non-critical service), and FreeBSD (mission-critical production server). The *nix servers are more reliable by far.
why should they spend their efforts making it easy for the incredibly dull and stupid people who tormented them when they had the opportunity (i.e. in school)?
errr....sounds like you have some issues to work out here.
Slashdot Mirror
This is clearly aimed at - once again - making fools out of Slashdot readers. Doesn't *anyone* verify anything before posting a submission or posting a rant? What a bunch of buffoons. This place has gotten worse than the Usenet.
I especially like the ass who says that based on this article he's buying a Vaio over a PowerBook. Excellent research on which to base your decision...you tool.
Instead of using some kind of electronic ballot, simply turn over control of electing our next president to the WWF (Wrestling Federation, not Wildlife Fund). Just have a big 'ol tag-team cage match. In this particular case, we could make it even *more* interesting by having Nader be the referee.
'Course, I guess Jesse Ventura would pretty much take it in '04, but maybe that's just what this country needs/deserves.
No, Netscape and IE are the real source of the problem. If they hadn't both tried to develop an "embrace and extend" approach to html and had evolved along with standards, then your situation wouldn't be so bad today.
<p>
Of course, you are using cutting-edge technology that isn't really guaranteed to work, so you really shouldn't be bitching about it. And the reality is that not that many people are going to develop for your platform for the foreseeable future. So maybe you want to pass along a request to the Proxiweb makers that their browser gracefully decode these "pixel-positioned" sites. I mean, what's so freakin' difficult about that?
For example, consider the Vietnam conflict. Much has been written about this episode in US history, and much of what's been written reflects the author's personal or institutional agenda. What if we had access not only to the original Walter Cronkite newscasts, but also to BBC, French, Chinese, and Vietnamese daily television broadcasts for the same period? Or even an open-source archive of reporting from individuals (something like that described in "Mother of Storms" by John Barnes) I think something like this is a good first step towards removing the (often-unwanted) mediation that is so prevalent in modern culture.
Someone else mentioned the Gargoyles in Stephenson's "Snow Crash" who constantly uploaded everything to the Library of Congress and were paid by access. I say this is an excellent proposition, but privatize it and make a million. As television and video become part of the historical record, it's high time we stopped seeing these records as ephemera and begin giving them the respect they deserve. Even if they are stilted and mediated, they reflect current viewpoints and attitudes, just as blackface minstrels did in just over a century ago.
Why would X running under MOSX be any more of a threat than Linux running on the PowerPC? I think the previous poster hit the nail on the head - there is a significant difference in skill set.
The majority of Mac users don't give a damn about the techy details slashdotters hold so near and dear - they just want to get their email, surf the web, print pictures of their newest nephew, and maybe edit a newsletter or two. Without crashing. Whatever gets them that is fine.
I can't see masses of Mac users suddenly moving over to a platform that requires so much more of them simply because python is available. Remember - MacOS 9 already offers power tools (perl, AppleScript, Webstar server) - but *very* few Mac users ever delve into them.
Actually, all that good scripting power is already there in the default install. Well, at least TCL is for sure, I beleive Perl is as well. Even if it isn't, you can install it with very little hassle and run it from the included terminal window. And the remote control (ie: telnet, ftp) is disabled by default, but is extremely simple to activate. Voila - both of your "biggest failures" removed. 'Course, MOSX isn't a non-unix OS...it's a non-XWindows OS.
You don't need XWindows to run the overwhelming majority of these scripts. About the biggest limitation I've found so far is the inability to run TK. It'd be a bear for someone to port,
The previous poster is right - Aqua is just a theme. But if you substitute MacOS X for Aqua...you're still wrong.
It's kinda like saying Netscape Navigator runs under Windows, and Microsoft Office runs under Windows, so that implies Microsoft Office on Netscape Navigator.
Yes, I do think that Apple can compete against MS without Open Source. Apple has been successfully competing against MS even back when most Open Source developers were getting their first hot wheel cars. Literally.
<p>
I hate idiots like this who have no sense of 5 or 10 years ago. What do people like this make of history? "Lincoln was....ummmm....some dude, right? He did something important?"
Ahh, finally a voice of reason. I agree that the overwhelming majority of folks who bitch and moan about companies not releasing "free" software simply like getting something for nothing - they never contribute their time or money.
TAANSTAFL - but so many Slahdot readers simply jump on the backs of the hardworking and talented out there and dare to complain when someone asks them to give something back that the edifice of free software is starting to creak under their weight.
Can you name another laptop that offers comparable features and a bigger screen for the same price?
Jesus. Why is this world so full of people who can't see beyond their own noses?
First - I'll wager you've never *used* an iBook for longer than 5 minutes. If you had, you'd find that the display is quite nice.
Second - Many people want a laptop that only does 800x600. Obviously, as the iBook has been selling rather briskly. Ask yourself this: What would the iBook target market be doing that *requires* more than 800x600? And if they really need to do that, why wouldn't they be in a position to spend the additional $ for a machine that gives them that screen rez? For that matter, what comparably-priced laptop has a bigger screen?
Third - You obviously do not do graphics work and are unfamiliar with Macs generally. I am both. The iBook is not geared towards doing graphics work, but rather as an entry-level machine for college students. (Not geek college students, but normals). Machines such as the G3 PowerBook and G4 tower are machines geared towards graphic professionals. Any graphic designer who buys an iBook as their primary machine is a fool who probably has a history of using the wrong tool for a job.
Please folks, keep your ignorance a private matter.
I definitely agree concerning the iBook - if 12" screen is too small for you, fork over the cash for a full Powerboook and don't blame the iBook. It's placement is for entry-level laptop owners (Who'd have thought there even was such a thing?).
But because I own both a PowerBook and an iBook, I can tell you that the screen issue isn't a big one. If you're using Photoshop, Quark, Director, or GoLive/DreamWeaver (ie: *Designer* tools) then you don't want an iBook - you need the bigger screen.
If however, you're using email, websurfing, writing an occasional article/memo/paper, or even writing some simple code, the iBook running at 800x600 is plenty big enough. I suspect that it's plenty for running LinuxPPC or YDL. Big screens are nice, but unless you're able to pay for them they're a potential waste on laptops - by giving up a little screen real estate you can save yourself major bucks. This is true for *all* laptops, not just Apple's offerings.
> (note that I don't agree with their decision and would
> never deploy the non-Unix Mac OS for any production
> network server - also note that their assumption isn't
> even correct, because AppleScript is quite comparable
> to the Bourne shell and *can* be remotely invoked in
> some cases).
This post was written by a hack with just enough understanding of the MacOS and AppleScript to screw it up.
While it is theoretically possible to enable remote access of AppleScript, this is not a trivial thing to do (ie: your average Mac user will have trouble enabling this feature) and it is *not* (repeat NOT) on by default. Additionally, saying that AppleScript is comparable to the Bourne shell is a crock of shit. For better or worse, the Bourne shell has far more power than AppleScript does. AppleScript is more along the lines of TCL than a shell.
However, I definitely agree with his assertion that it is silly to run a production server on the MacOS. I run servers on MacOS (backwards compatibility), WinNT (ditto), Linux (non-critical service), and FreeBSD (mission-critical production server). The *nix servers are more reliable by far.
why should they spend their efforts making it easy for the incredibly dull and stupid people who tormented them when they had the opportunity (i.e. in school)?
errr....sounds like you have some issues to work out here.