I think maybe you might be a little unclear on something here.
Only the D2X and D2HS record NEFs with encrypted white-balance data. These are both professional cameras. The D2HS is a sports journalism camera; the D2X is a next-generation camera that would work well either in the studio, equipped with AirPort Extreme and shooting 12 megapixels of super-RGB color, or in the field shooting 8 frames per second at 6 megapixels.
The D2HS is $3,500. The D2X is $5,000. Both are for the body alone. No lenses, flashes, or other accessories included.
Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- is going to decide not to buy one of these cameras because some nerd tells him not to. If you need one of these cameras, you already have a huge collection of Nikon lenses and flashes. You already have a digital workflow based around NEF. The fact that the white-balance data is encrypted means nothing to you, and will never affect you. And if anybody tries to tell you otherwise, you will laugh in his face.
Now, if you wanted to, you could go around telling all your friends not to buy Nikon cameras. They'd ask you why, of course, and you'd have to explain that you don't think they should buy this Nikon camera because that Nikon camera, which you will never even see in person much less own yourself, does something you wish it didn't do that will never affect anybody anyway. And at that point, they're gonna laugh in your face.
I'm confused. Maybe you can explain something to me.
You say you want to take somebody else's property, incorporate it into your own whatever, and then release under terms that allow other people to modify it, copy it, do whatever they want with it.
How is that not completely deranged?
I don't mean to be rude, I really don't. I'm just having a very hard time understanding how your statement doesn't boil down to "Give me your stuff, and by the way waive all moral and property rights to it in the process."
Basically, yes. Apple programs follow Apple designs, not Microsoft designs. What's the point of spending a lot of time and efforting writing a new piece of software for Windows if it's just gonna look like every other piece of software for Windows?
Launchd is an agent manager. It manages agents (what they used to call daemons) and can start them either on demand or at boot time, or on a specific schedule.
As such, it obsoletes init, system init scripts (rc, init.d, SystemStarter, whatever), watchdog, inetd and xinetd, and cron.
Dude, your copy-and-paste skills are certainly above reproach, but can we just get right down to it, please? You don't like conservatives. Anybody who's a conservative, who expresses a conservative opinion, you describe as a shill, a dittohead, a mouthpiece.
You give liberals a bad name, man. I hate Bush. Hate him with a fiery passion. I think he's an idiot redneck Christian who can barely string a sentence together. He embarrasses me every time he opens his mouth.
But at least I'm honest. Seriously, at least I'm happy to admit that people who have a different point of view are also entitled to freedom of speech and of the press. Shit, even I -- who marched in a dozen protests before the war -- have finally woken up and admitted that, yes, al Qaeda was in control of Iraq, and they're desperately trying to get that control back by shooting down helicopters and blowing up mosques.
Be liberal, man. Be progressive. But don't be so fucking intolerant, and don't be such an idiot. Open your eyes and live in the real world.
Either that, or you're just secretly a conservative posing as a liberal to try to make the rest of us look bad. Frankly, your skreed was so full of stereotypical hate-speech, I'm starting to think that that might be exactly what happened here.
Oh, and as to why he's not attending press conferences, the answer is that your little pal over at that blog destroyed his fucking life. Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
My head's all a-spinning. First you bitched about how we don't have sufficient Objective-C++ support for you to port your game thing, now you're telling me that it's been in there for years. One of us is confused. I'm fairly certain it's not me.
And no, we don't do developer surveys. Never have.
I'm sure the system simply renders a thumbnail image and saves it as metadata, updating it when the file is modified. I'm sure no actual code from the file is ever executed, or even buffered.
All I've been trying to say all along is that you shouldn't assume there's no demand for Objective C++.
We don't. We measure demand by looking at the number of feature requests we get.
I for one was never asked about Objective C++
Wait. Just stop right there. Are you suggesting that you expected somebody from Apple to come knocking on your door and ask you what where we should go from here? Seriously?
I consider it vital to continuing support for OS X
Okay, well, obviously it's not vital, because nobody's asking for it. So, you know. There it is.
Hundreds of thousands of lines of code for manipulating polygon models, brushes, curved surfaces and terrains, all rendered through an OpenGL graphics engine, cannot be rewritten in Cocoa in "a matter of hours,"
None of those lines of code would need to be rewritten. They're all in either standard C (probably) or C++ (if you're unlucky), and all will compile cleanly on the Mac. You're just manipulating data structures and drawing to an Open GL context. No platform-specific code is involved. (Well, maybe for device input, if you're doing something squirrely, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your editor tool.)
All that needs to be implemented is the user interface layer, and from the supplied screen shot, we can all see that that would be trivial.
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
We've already shipped seven million copies of Tiger. That's not retail shipments. That's actual orders to actual humans. That's seven million people who are already running software compiled with GCC 4, or who will be once their UPS guy arrives sometime between now and a week from today.
(The customers who go to the trouble of ordering early are always overjoyed when they get their shipment a full week ahead of schedule. Did you order pre-order Tiger from the Apple Store on our Web site? Check your mail. Odds are fair that your box is already waiting for you.)
Apple represents a small part of the *nix world.
According to Gartner, we shipped more copies of our operating system in 2004 than all other vendors of Unix-based operating systems worldwide, combined. In point of fact, Apple represents the majority of the Unix world.
The term you're groping for here is "figure of speech." Might want to familiarize yourself with it. Did you think when I said that it rounds down to zero that I was speaking in terms of mathematics? Did you think I was being literal? Or did you realize that I was employing a metaphor?
When I say that demand for Objective-C++ is insignificant, I mean it. The total number of feature requests we received related to Objective-C++ between the time when we first opened up requests for Tiger to the present is 94. Ninety-four over eighteen months.
To put it in perspective, we got 97 requests to change the names of products during the same period. Seriously. One guy asked us, in writing, to change the name of Final Cut Pro because he thought it sounded to violent. His suggestion? Edit Pro. We all had a good laugh over that one.
We don't just make this stuff up, you know. We have an actual database of feature requests, a part of Radar, that tells us who wants what. We know that nobody wants Objective-C++. We're not just guessing. Okay?
But I'm telling you that you can have an entirely native Mac version in a matter of hours. Just create the interface with IB, then write your model to handle file I/O. Use bindings to link them together. Piece of cake. Better solution than trying to port Windows code.
See, this is why our ISVs all stopped asking for Objective-C++. They realized, after just minutes of looking into it, that they could produce better applications faster by using Cocoa than by trying to port code that might be fine on Windows but that just isn't right for the Mac.
Just think of it as a radical refactoring, and quit stressing about it.
(Besides, in the final analysis, we have a vested interest in actively preventing ISVs from shipping bad ports of Windows programs. Every bad Mac application leaves a customer with a bad impression of Apple, and we don't want that. There needs to be some gatekeeping to make sure we maintain a sort of minimum level of quality.)
At its current priority, there aren't enough people to satisfy the demands of higher priority items and it.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. Let's cut through the bullshit, okay? Insignificant customer demand led us to pull people off of Objective-C++ and put them on projects that would actually benefit people.
You make it sound like we de-prioritized Objective-C++. That's misleading and wrong. Fact is, our developers de-prioritized it for us. We're just responding to that.
I guess all the people responding to this thread saying they want it are lying
There was one guy. He claimed to want Objective-C++ to write a video game editor. I do, in fact, suspect that he's lying, because that job can be done in Cocoa so much more easily anyway. Lying? Eh. Maybe that's too strong a word. Let's go with confused.
There may not be enough demand for you to do it, but that doesn't mean there's no people who want it.
The level of demand is so low that it rounds off to zero.
That's like saying someone saying they're going to create a Macintosh version of a program, and then stopping silently because there's no Macintosh users.
An installed base of 40 million users growing at the (as of this moment) rate of ten million new users a year does not round down to zero.
Wow. That's a pretty radical interpretation of the text. Companies are avoiding Gnu because they fear competition? No. Companies are avoiding Gnu because they have a responsibility to their shareholders to make good decisions. There's no way that releasing software under terms that (1) not merely allow but actually require copies to be given away for free, (2) has a tendency to pull any code that's linked to it into the same quagmire, and (3) leads to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit could be considered a good decision.
Companies are avoiding Gnu because they fear being sued by their shareholders for dereliction.
I don't think so, no. If all you wanted to build was an editor, you wouldn't need C++ bindings for Cocoa. You could just bang the whole thing out in Objective-C using Cocoa bindings. Probaby have it done in an afternoon.
Hmm. That's a pretty sound misrepresentation. You make it sound like our guys are spread too thin to work on Objective-C++. Not so.
Fact is, demand for Objective-C++ from our developers is so close to zero as to be completely insigificant. Seriously, there's more demand for Python than Objective-C++. Honest to God, Python!
All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation, not with Cocoa. That's fine. Core Foundation is a first-class application platform in Mac OS X. It's just so much more of a pain in the ass to use, developers are flocking away from C and C++ to reimplement in Objective-C, not even bothering with Objective-C++ along the way.
So it's not that we don't have the time. It's that we don't see the point.
Re:Figured this had to happen
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If anybody was wondering, this is why we stay as far away from the Gnu people as humanly possible.
We're not shipping "a fork" of GCC 4. We're shipping GCC 4.0.0, which we compiled from source for Darwin 8.
In fact, when you're talking about shipping a compiler for a specific platform, the whole notion of "a fork" is basically meaningless.
(Setting aside, of course, that the whole notion of "a fork" runs 100% counter to all that open-source stuff that you guys are supposedly so hip to anyway.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think maybe you might be a little unclear on something here.
Only the D2X and D2HS record NEFs with encrypted white-balance data. These are both professional cameras. The D2HS is a sports journalism camera; the D2X is a next-generation camera that would work well either in the studio, equipped with AirPort Extreme and shooting 12 megapixels of super-RGB color, or in the field shooting 8 frames per second at 6 megapixels.
The D2HS is $3,500. The D2X is $5,000. Both are for the body alone. No lenses, flashes, or other accessories included.
Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- is going to decide not to buy one of these cameras because some nerd tells him not to. If you need one of these cameras, you already have a huge collection of Nikon lenses and flashes. You already have a digital workflow based around NEF. The fact that the white-balance data is encrypted means nothing to you, and will never affect you. And if anybody tries to tell you otherwise, you will laugh in his face.
Now, if you wanted to, you could go around telling all your friends not to buy Nikon cameras. They'd ask you why, of course, and you'd have to explain that you don't think they should buy this Nikon camera because that Nikon camera, which you will never even see in person much less own yourself, does something you wish it didn't do that will never affect anybody anyway. And at that point, they're gonna laugh in your face.
I'm confused. Maybe you can explain something to me.
You say you want to take somebody else's property, incorporate it into your own whatever, and then release under terms that allow other people to modify it, copy it, do whatever they want with it.
How is that not completely deranged?
I don't mean to be rude, I really don't. I'm just having a very hard time understanding how your statement doesn't boil down to "Give me your stuff, and by the way waive all moral and property rights to it in the process."
Who are "we"? Clueless Apple fanboys?
Actually, "we" in this context is the company I work for.
valued members of the GNU developer community
No. We are not members of the Gnu community. We reject the Gnu community's politics out of hand. That's why we refuse to buy into their license.
Apple is shipping a version of their own branch of GCC
Never said we didn't. I said we didn't fork off our own compiler from Gnu.
The right to fork is essential
I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean.
Basically, yes. Apple programs follow Apple designs, not Microsoft designs. What's the point of spending a lot of time and efforting writing a new piece of software for Windows if it's just gonna look like every other piece of software for Windows?
Sounds just like Spotlight to me. You should consider getting a Mac.
Launchd is an agent manager. It manages agents (what they used to call daemons) and can start them either on demand or at boot time, or on a specific schedule.
As such, it obsoletes init, system init scripts (rc, init.d, SystemStarter, whatever), watchdog, inetd and xinetd, and cron.
"Peopel" is also not a word.
Dude, your copy-and-paste skills are certainly above reproach, but can we just get right down to it, please? You don't like conservatives. Anybody who's a conservative, who expresses a conservative opinion, you describe as a shill, a dittohead, a mouthpiece.
You give liberals a bad name, man. I hate Bush. Hate him with a fiery passion. I think he's an idiot redneck Christian who can barely string a sentence together. He embarrasses me every time he opens his mouth.
But at least I'm honest. Seriously, at least I'm happy to admit that people who have a different point of view are also entitled to freedom of speech and of the press. Shit, even I -- who marched in a dozen protests before the war -- have finally woken up and admitted that, yes, al Qaeda was in control of Iraq, and they're desperately trying to get that control back by shooting down helicopters and blowing up mosques.
Be liberal, man. Be progressive. But don't be so fucking intolerant, and don't be such an idiot. Open your eyes and live in the real world.
Either that, or you're just secretly a conservative posing as a liberal to try to make the rest of us look bad. Frankly, your skreed was so full of stereotypical hate-speech, I'm starting to think that that might be exactly what happened here.
Oh, and as to why he's not attending press conferences, the answer is that your little pal over at that blog destroyed his fucking life. Is that really how you want to do business? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, toe your party line, gets fucking anhiliated?
That's not my idea of a progressive America, man.
My head's all a-spinning. First you bitched about how we don't have sufficient Objective-C++ support for you to port your game thing, now you're telling me that it's been in there for years. One of us is confused. I'm fairly certain it's not me.
And no, we don't do developer surveys. Never have.
Want to be taken seriously? Stop making up words to try to sound cool. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."
I'm sure the system simply renders a thumbnail image and saves it as metadata, updating it when the file is modified. I'm sure no actual code from the file is ever executed, or even buffered.
All I've been trying to say all along is that you shouldn't assume there's no demand for Objective C++.
We don't. We measure demand by looking at the number of feature requests we get.
I for one was never asked about Objective C++
Wait. Just stop right there. Are you suggesting that you expected somebody from Apple to come knocking on your door and ask you what where we should go from here? Seriously?
I consider it vital to continuing support for OS X
Okay, well, obviously it's not vital, because nobody's asking for it. So, you know. There it is.
Hundreds of thousands of lines of code for manipulating polygon models, brushes, curved surfaces and terrains, all rendered through an OpenGL graphics engine, cannot be rewritten in Cocoa in "a matter of hours,"
None of those lines of code would need to be rewritten. They're all in either standard C (probably) or C++ (if you're unlucky), and all will compile cleanly on the Mac. You're just manipulating data structures and drawing to an Open GL context. No platform-specific code is involved. (Well, maybe for device input, if you're doing something squirrely, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your editor tool.)
All that needs to be implemented is the user interface layer, and from the supplied screen shot, we can all see that that would be trivial.
We've already shipped seven million copies of Tiger. That's not retail shipments. That's actual orders to actual humans. That's seven million people who are already running software compiled with GCC 4, or who will be once their UPS guy arrives sometime between now and a week from today.
(The customers who go to the trouble of ordering early are always overjoyed when they get their shipment a full week ahead of schedule. Did you order pre-order Tiger from the Apple Store on our Web site? Check your mail. Odds are fair that your box is already waiting for you.)
Apple represents a small part of the *nix world.
According to Gartner, we shipped more copies of our operating system in 2004 than all other vendors of Unix-based operating systems worldwide, combined. In point of fact, Apple represents the majority of the Unix world.
The term you're groping for here is "figure of speech." Might want to familiarize yourself with it. Did you think when I said that it rounds down to zero that I was speaking in terms of mathematics? Did you think I was being literal? Or did you realize that I was employing a metaphor?
When I say that demand for Objective-C++ is insignificant, I mean it. The total number of feature requests we received related to Objective-C++ between the time when we first opened up requests for Tiger to the present is 94. Ninety-four over eighteen months.
To put it in perspective, we got 97 requests to change the names of products during the same period. Seriously. One guy asked us, in writing, to change the name of Final Cut Pro because he thought it sounded to violent. His suggestion? Edit Pro. We all had a good laugh over that one.
We don't just make this stuff up, you know. We have an actual database of feature requests, a part of Radar, that tells us who wants what. We know that nobody wants Objective-C++. We're not just guessing. Okay?
But I'm telling you that you can have an entirely native Mac version in a matter of hours. Just create the interface with IB, then write your model to handle file I/O. Use bindings to link them together. Piece of cake. Better solution than trying to port Windows code.
See, this is why our ISVs all stopped asking for Objective-C++. They realized, after just minutes of looking into it, that they could produce better applications faster by using Cocoa than by trying to port code that might be fine on Windows but that just isn't right for the Mac.
Just think of it as a radical refactoring, and quit stressing about it.
(Besides, in the final analysis, we have a vested interest in actively preventing ISVs from shipping bad ports of Windows programs. Every bad Mac application leaves a customer with a bad impression of Apple, and we don't want that. There needs to be some gatekeeping to make sure we maintain a sort of minimum level of quality.)
At its current priority, there aren't enough people to satisfy the demands of higher priority items and it.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. Let's cut through the bullshit, okay? Insignificant customer demand led us to pull people off of Objective-C++ and put them on projects that would actually benefit people.
You make it sound like we de-prioritized Objective-C++. That's misleading and wrong. Fact is, our developers de-prioritized it for us. We're just responding to that.
I guess all the people responding to this thread saying they want it are lying
There was one guy. He claimed to want Objective-C++ to write a video game editor. I do, in fact, suspect that he's lying, because that job can be done in Cocoa so much more easily anyway. Lying? Eh. Maybe that's too strong a word. Let's go with confused.
There may not be enough demand for you to do it, but that doesn't mean there's no people who want it.
The level of demand is so low that it rounds off to zero.
That's like saying someone saying they're going to create a Macintosh version of a program, and then stopping silently because there's no Macintosh users.
An installed base of 40 million users growing at the (as of this moment) rate of ten million new users a year does not round down to zero.
Wow. That's a pretty radical interpretation of the text. Companies are avoiding Gnu because they fear competition? No. Companies are avoiding Gnu because they have a responsibility to their shareholders to make good decisions. There's no way that releasing software under terms that (1) not merely allow but actually require copies to be given away for free, (2) has a tendency to pull any code that's linked to it into the same quagmire, and (3) leads to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit could be considered a good decision.
Companies are avoiding Gnu because they fear being sued by their shareholders for dereliction.
I don't think so, no. If all you wanted to build was an editor, you wouldn't need C++ bindings for Cocoa. You could just bang the whole thing out in Objective-C using Cocoa bindings. Probaby have it done in an afternoon.
Again: I smell a rat.
If you're talking about porting a game ... why would you need Cocoa?
No offense, but I smell a rat.
We've been using GCC 4 internally since the winter of 2003.
You're defining "fork" so broadly that every build from every vendor would meet it. That's pretty silly.
You don't have enough people to work on it with the priorities that you're putting on it.
You realize that you got that exactly backwards, right?
And it seems pretty unfair that Apple has led all the people who want a Objective-C++ on
What people? That's the point. There's no demand for it.
Hmm. That's a pretty sound misrepresentation. You make it sound like our guys are spread too thin to work on Objective-C++. Not so.
Fact is, demand for Objective-C++ from our developers is so close to zero as to be completely insigificant. Seriously, there's more demand for Python than Objective-C++. Honest to God, Python!
All the ISVs who are still using C++ are building their apps with Core Foundation, not with Cocoa. That's fine. Core Foundation is a first-class application platform in Mac OS X. It's just so much more of a pain in the ass to use, developers are flocking away from C and C++ to reimplement in Objective-C, not even bothering with Objective-C++ along the way.
So it's not that we don't have the time. It's that we don't see the point.
If anybody was wondering, this is why we stay as far away from the Gnu people as humanly possible.
We're not shipping "a fork" of GCC 4. We're shipping GCC 4.0.0, which we compiled from source for Darwin 8.
In fact, when you're talking about shipping a compiler for a specific platform, the whole notion of "a fork" is basically meaningless.
(Setting aside, of course, that the whole notion of "a fork" runs 100% counter to all that open-source stuff that you guys are supposedly so hip to anyway.)