Greed is the more fundamental of the two equations, as it drove outsourcing with attempts to increase profits by decreasing the cost of employees. I'll leave you alone with your cognitive dissonance, now.
Yeah, Google sent you to a marketing page for Safari, which is currently being used to promote the beta. If you really want the older version, the search engine on apple.com would be a much better resource.
You're "prepared to stand corrected on the fact that this isnt being pushed at present by the insidious apple update. "
Wow, how big of you to be prepared to stand corrected. At what point will you actually stand corrected? Actually, I am looking forward to being prepared to stand corrected that your inaccurate accusation against Apple is not an insidious Hater posting by someone who can't get his facts right.
I don't know which is worse. Your initial inaccuracy, or your lame attempt at a retraction while still tossing an unwarranted insult. At any rate, I am prepared to hear your sniveling dishonest reply.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the lame attempt at a retraction was worse. The original inaccurate accusation could have been corrected with graceful humility in the face of fact.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I went to Apple's site, typed "Safari" into their search field, and among the links on the first page of results there is the page you seek.
Also note that if you do download the beta of Safari 4, it actually contains two installers: one to try the new beta, and another to revert to the previous stable version. This is true on OSX, at least. (I don't have a Windows machine.)
Although this is answered several other places here, I'll reiterate: this is only a beta, and is not being distributed by software update. Therefore, none of the uptake can be said to be 'artificial' in the manner you imply.
I know it seems natural, based on the quality of their products, to assume that the only testing that occurs is that done outside of the organization by hapless but willing beta testers. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that they have legions of QA people within their walls, and various automated tests. They probably also have closed beta testing engagements with willing organizations.
Maybe you do, but I shave to keep my ballsack silky.
And just because you have to design for the LCD doesn't mean you have to always use the LCD. Life is short. Use a better browser. I don't care which one, but only stoop to the LCD when you absolutely have to.
You must have missed this, or the importance thereof:
Because of the experience and features that their applications provide. What they do not know, and cannot be expected to know, is that these things stem from deliberate tradeoffs
As much as I like how far Gnome and KDE have come along, they are trailing, and serve only as evidence that NeXT made the right tradeoff 20 years ago.
Because of the experience and features that their applications provide. What they do not know, and cannot be expected to know, is that these things stem from deliberate tradeoffs made by the developers of the underlying frameworks.
As any programmer worth his salt knows, any design decision comes with a set of tradeoffs. This is an inescapable fact, and only goes unrecognized by the ignorant (whether their ignorance be innocent or willful.) The fine art of balancing a set of tradeoffs is very difficult, and an inherent aspect of it is that you can't please everybody 100% of the time.
In this case, you are one of the unfortunate few that Apple deliberately chose to devalue in their design priorities, since one of the items high on your wish-list is ubiquitous remote displayability via the X11 protocol.
But, bringing our minds back to the subject of tradeoffs, what did they win by giving you the finger? (*) This is an easy exercise for those skilled in software architecture. The first thing that one needs to ask is what sort of restrictions does conformance to X11 bring with it? X11 is a set of abstractions that end up leaking into many different layers of your software stack. While I love X11, a lot of those abstractions were invented a very long time ago before anyone thought they might like different abstractions, like a hardware-accellerated Quartz display server - or CoreImage, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation.
This choice has given them the freedom they need to make architectural advancements faster, and now they're in a leadership position. If you are a programmer and you still think they could have delivered their current product in the same timeframe after having volunteered to be hamstrung by obedience to X11, then you might want to consider a career change.
Nothing comes without a cost. There is a long history of UNIX vendors who tried for years to bring a good GUI environment to X11 and the best they could come up with was CDE. (WTF.)
(*) one footnote here: it wasn't Apple that gave you the finger. This decision was made in the late 80s at NeXT when they opted against X11 so that they could get the WYSIWYG properties afforded by the Display Postscript system. After Apple acquired them, they kept the imaging model but replaced the Postscript interpreter with Display PDF. (PDF is, more or less, the PostScript imaging model without the full force of the Postscript programming language.)
Yes, I see you've chosen #1 as your remaining complaint. Like I said, most users are thankful for this, and with good reason.
Regardless, all you wanted was to see a Mac do what you suggested, which it can. Now you're demanding that this be the case for all applications...you're trying to score by moving the goalposts.
And have the GUI application pop up on a remote screen without the WHOLE screen like VNC.
You can't seriously be suggesting that X11 is unavailable for OSX. If you have an X11 application that you would like to run, you can certainly do what you're suggesting. No serious UNIX weenie should have any trouble building it. Your only possible room for complaint here is 1) that that not every application is an X11 application (something for which most users are thankful) or 2) that you want your mommy to have compiled the app for you already.
"fairly recent!?" Dude, that was a decade ago. I became a Mac user when Rhapsody first came out (it was the NeXT lineage that brought be onboard) and a lot of time has passed since. This reminds me of growing up in Podunk, Nebraska, in that after living their for 10 years the old ladies at the Methodist church were still referring to my mother as "the new girl in town".
That's a pretty big "if", given that the operating system that Apple chose to make had hardware requirements not ubiquitous on IBM PCs of the same era, making their hypothetical victory a bunch of pipe smoke.
Ah, how that brings me back in time to the mentality that made the latter half of the 90's the golden age of computing: "Everybody run to the starboard side of the boat at the same time...wonderful things will happen, I promise!"
I think you're right about the fat binaries. The right way for them to do it is to replace them with a plain LLVM BC representation that can be JIT compiled to anything. This would completely decouple Apple's dependence on the x86 instruction set.
I'm not sure what to think about the rumors that PPC won't be supported. I remember that the developer pre-release builds of leopard were also x86-only...yet here it is running on my G5.
Imagine a consumer who has decided to not own a television, let alone pay for cable TV channels. Perhaps they don't watch much, and the few things they want to watch are available on their computer...perhaps they might occasionally binge on one TV series - maybe Battlestar Galactica - that they bought off of the iTunes store.
But further imagine that the only broadband in their region is a Time Warner cable modem. Say that Time Warner has decided to throttle the data rate of downloads from iTunes, a content-distribution competitor of theirs, so that instead of being able to immediately download & play the latest episode, they have to wait for 17 hours for the download to complete.
Slashdot Mirror
Greed is the more fundamental of the two equations, as it drove outsourcing with attempts to increase profits by decreasing the cost of employees. I'll leave you alone with your cognitive dissonance, now.
I was thinking the same thing. The least they could do is use a nice neutral intermediate representation like LLVM bc and JIT compile it to whatever.
Yeah, Google sent you to a marketing page for Safari, which is currently being used to promote the beta. If you really want the older version, the search engine on apple.com would be a much better resource.
You're "prepared to stand corrected on the fact that this isnt being pushed at present by the insidious apple update. "
Wow, how big of you to be prepared to stand corrected. At what point will you actually stand corrected? Actually, I am looking forward to being prepared to stand corrected that your inaccurate accusation against Apple is not an insidious Hater posting by someone who can't get his facts right.
I don't know which is worse. Your initial inaccuracy, or your lame attempt at a retraction while still tossing an unwarranted insult. At any rate, I am prepared to hear your sniveling dishonest reply.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the lame attempt at a retraction was worse. The original inaccurate accusation could have been corrected with graceful humility in the face of fact.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I went to Apple's site, typed "Safari" into their search field, and among the links on the first page of results there is the page you seek.
Also note that if you do download the beta of Safari 4, it actually contains two installers: one to try the new beta, and another to revert to the previous stable version. This is true on OSX, at least. (I don't have a Windows machine.)
Although this is answered several other places here, I'll reiterate: this is only a beta, and is not being distributed by software update. Therefore, none of the uptake can be said to be 'artificial' in the manner you imply.
Do trade barriers count as "cultural opposition", though? Political and economic opposition, sure. But cultural?
If it isn't in the beta it isn't being tested.
I know it seems natural, based on the quality of their products, to assume that the only testing that occurs is that done outside of the organization by hapless but willing beta testers. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that they have legions of QA people within their walls, and various automated tests. They probably also have closed beta testing engagements with willing organizations.
It's all in the wording. You're right, the semantics are the same, but the first phrasing makes it explicit.
Maybe you do, but I shave to keep my ballsack silky.
And just because you have to design for the LCD doesn't mean you have to always use the LCD. Life is short. Use a better browser. I don't care which one, but only stoop to the LCD when you absolutely have to.
Private Browsing was introduced in version 2.0 of Safari, back in April '05.
So you're saying that there are zero design wins from not having based everything on X. Really.
You must have missed this, or the importance thereof:
Because of the experience and features that their applications provide. What they do not know, and cannot be expected to know, is that these things stem from deliberate tradeoffs
As much as I like how far Gnome and KDE have come along, they are trailing, and serve only as evidence that NeXT made the right tradeoff 20 years ago.
And what would that "good reason" be?
Because of the experience and features that their applications provide. What they do not know, and cannot be expected to know, is that these things stem from deliberate tradeoffs made by the developers of the underlying frameworks.
As any programmer worth his salt knows, any design decision comes with a set of tradeoffs. This is an inescapable fact, and only goes unrecognized by the ignorant (whether their ignorance be innocent or willful.) The fine art of balancing a set of tradeoffs is very difficult, and an inherent aspect of it is that you can't please everybody 100% of the time.
In this case, you are one of the unfortunate few that Apple deliberately chose to devalue in their design priorities, since one of the items high on your wish-list is ubiquitous remote displayability via the X11 protocol.
But, bringing our minds back to the subject of tradeoffs, what did they win by giving you the finger? (*) This is an easy exercise for those skilled in software architecture. The first thing that one needs to ask is what sort of restrictions does conformance to X11 bring with it? X11 is a set of abstractions that end up leaking into many different layers of your software stack. While I love X11, a lot of those abstractions were invented a very long time ago before anyone thought they might like different abstractions, like a hardware-accellerated Quartz display server - or CoreImage, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation.
This choice has given them the freedom they need to make architectural advancements faster, and now they're in a leadership position. If you are a programmer and you still think they could have delivered their current product in the same timeframe after having volunteered to be hamstrung by obedience to X11, then you might want to consider a career change.
Nothing comes without a cost. There is a long history of UNIX vendors who tried for years to bring a good GUI environment to X11 and the best they could come up with was CDE. (WTF.)
(*) one footnote here: it wasn't Apple that gave you the finger. This decision was made in the late 80s at NeXT when they opted against X11 so that they could get the WYSIWYG properties afforded by the Display Postscript system. After Apple acquired them, they kept the imaging model but replaced the Postscript interpreter with Display PDF. (PDF is, more or less, the PostScript imaging model without the full force of the Postscript programming language.)
...but it is not *the* display system
Yes, I see you've chosen #1 as your remaining complaint. Like I said, most users are thankful for this, and with good reason.
Regardless, all you wanted was to see a Mac do what you suggested, which it can. Now you're demanding that this be the case for all applications...you're trying to score by moving the goalposts.
lets see a Mac do this:
ssh -X hostaddr application
And have the GUI application pop up on a remote screen without the WHOLE screen like VNC.
You can't seriously be suggesting that X11 is unavailable for OSX. If you have an X11 application that you would like to run, you can certainly do what you're suggesting. No serious UNIX weenie should have any trouble building it. Your only possible room for complaint here is 1) that that not every application is an X11 application (something for which most users are thankful) or 2) that you want your mommy to have compiled the app for you already.
"fairly recent!?" Dude, that was a decade ago. I became a Mac user when Rhapsody first came out (it was the NeXT lineage that brought be onboard) and a lot of time has passed since. This reminds me of growing up in Podunk, Nebraska, in that after living their for 10 years the old ladies at the Methodist church were still referring to my mother as "the new girl in town".
That's a pretty big "if", given that the operating system that Apple chose to make had hardware requirements not ubiquitous on IBM PCs of the same era, making their hypothetical victory a bunch of pipe smoke.
So, please, for the love of computing, tell me why this is classed as opinion?
As long as there are masochists, there is always room for that point of view.
At the time the post I was responding to was marked "troll". A mod must have come in after me to ruin my joke. Oh well. :-/
Ah, how that brings me back in time to the mentality that made the latter half of the 90's the golden age of computing: "Everybody run to the starboard side of the boat at the same time...wonderful things will happen, I promise!"
I'm so sick of how anything that criticizes microsoft on slashdot gets modded up on slashdot, and...oh, nevermind.
I think you're right about the fat binaries. The right way for them to do it is to replace them with a plain LLVM BC representation that can be JIT compiled to anything. This would completely decouple Apple's dependence on the x86 instruction set.
I'm not sure what to think about the rumors that PPC won't be supported. I remember that the developer pre-release builds of leopard were also x86-only...yet here it is running on my G5.
How do you recommend they do that?
Imagine a consumer who has decided to not own a television, let alone pay for cable TV channels. Perhaps they don't watch much, and the few things they want to watch are available on their computer...perhaps they might occasionally binge on one TV series - maybe Battlestar Galactica - that they bought off of the iTunes store.
But further imagine that the only broadband in their region is a Time Warner cable modem. Say that Time Warner has decided to throttle the data rate of downloads from iTunes, a content-distribution competitor of theirs, so that instead of being able to immediately download & play the latest episode, they have to wait for 17 hours for the download to complete.
That's a world without net neutrality.