seriously. people may scoff at Apple, but i worked on a cube with an LCD monitor in a quiet room for a while and it was increadible! i'm one of those people who likes his workspace to be quiet (i don't listen to music while i work either) so it was a very refreshing change.
if you don't want a Mac then i would suggest a well designed laptop, like an IBM thinkpad (perhaps with an external monitor?). although you'd better get a pad for it that allows airflow underneath it or the fan will come on quite often (i use a RoadTools Pivot 360 at work).
it's a rough life for us obsessed with quiet.:) what's really strange though is that while i insist on near silence when doing computer work, my hobby is DJing at insanely loud raves and clubs!:)
- j
Re:Why haven't others used wood?
on
Hardwoodware
·
· Score: 2
well i think it comes down to the fact that wood is very expensive. all the slashdot geeks would just say "bah, why would i pay for wood when i can just get a big ol' metal case?":)
but i digress. i heard a while back (while i was living in the Bay Area) of a guy that paid a professional woodworker to exactly replicate the plastic covers of a PowerMac G3 case (the same case they use for the current G4s) out of oak. i guess it cost him hundreds of dollars, but damn that would be a nice looking case. does anybody know this guy? i'd love to see a picture of that case!
i have a question: why do we care so much about this? why does speed even matter? i think this is a symptom of long-time computer geeks still obsessed with who has the "fastest" computer. i realized a couple of years ago that computers these days are really fucking fast. i do a lot of photoshop work, compiling and other processor-intensive tasks but i've very quickly realized that:
processors are way faster than anything i need to do
most of the time my processor sits idle while waiting for user input
i have a degree in electrical engineering that taught me that comparing benchmarked "speed" between completely different processors is next to impossible
i care more about the user interface and whether or not i can get work done than pure speed
as a result i stopped looking at "megahertz" a long time ago. what cares to me is, can i get my work done, and is it enjoyable? as a result i use a Windows laptop at work, a Mac desktop at home and a Linux box for my server. i "know" what speed they are but that was of absolutely no consequence to me. instead i thought to myself "what is the most productive and enjoyable way of getting done what i need to do?" then i bought the computer and installed the operating system that fit.
i suggest you take a break from the benchmarks and come back to reality for a moment. if a Macintosh doesn't do what you want it to do at the right price point then fine, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they're any less useful just because they're "slower." even Macs have their place in the world, and the slashdot geeks would significantly lower their stress levels if they stopped thinking so much about it. get the computer that works for you at the price you're comfortable with, end of story. desktop computers are more than fast enough to do just about anything you'd want to do anyhow.
this isn't actually "meant" to be a server at all. Intrinsyc is a consulting company, and this board is just a base that they use for many of their customer designs. putting it into a neat-looking cube was only for the demoabilty, and they're only selling it because they got a lot of people asking them if they could buy one. that's it. they're expensive because they're not made in volume but they're also not trying to make any serious income off of it. it's a proof-of-concept box, nothing more. (and it is pretty cool -- you should see it in "real life")
But, none of this is rocket-science, which is why the automobile industry doesn't have the same Soviet-style organization as the computer industry. Oh, what? It turns out style sells just as it sells cars? I guess I've committed Slashdot heresy and will go to the corner and administer myself lashes. Meanwhile, here's to your Turbo buttons.
sure, it's all pretty obvious that the computer market will eventually be like the automotive market and these compaq designs are just the first step in that direction. i also believe that computers are going to move away from the quantitative component model to a solution-style sell. people will buy x "computer" that lets them do a, b & c. Mhz, processor, RAM and everything else will be nothing more than a footnote at the end of the user's manual.
Apple has already started along this path with their recent move into retail, and i don't think they'll be alone for long. the slashdot crew is going to have to get used to the fact that computers are not going to be like they are now for much longer, and the idea of the beige box under the desk and "built it yourself" computers will be a very antiquated idea for only old people (us) (kinda like the way we look at old mainframes today).
all in all i think it's for the best, but it's funny to watch all the long-time computer geeks fight it as much as possible. i wonder if a similar thing happened with automotive "gear heads" back many years ago? "bah, who's going to buy a car for that much when it only has x horsepower? leather seats? fancy colours? nobody's going to buy that!";)
well cannabis doesn't do much except make you forgetful and stupid which doesn't make you a very effective person while it's relieving pain. codeine is nice, but it requires a perscription. personally i suggest cocaine as it's "natural" as well, doesn't require a perscription, relieves pain AND it makes you more productive (longer attention span, easier to concentrate).
...or you could just get a better chair. your choice.
i believe that a lot of these PC manufacturers are going to move to designs such as this. the PC market has become a commodity of "cheap parts" that can be slapped together easily. "brand name" manufacturers are looking for ways of differentiating themselves from mom&pop computer store-style computers as they can't compete on the very thin margins of PCs (well under 5%). they need to make something sufficiently different from the do-it-yourself computer world so they can extract higher margins for their computers.
Apple has 5% of the desktop market for personal computers yet they make more money than PC manufacturers with double that marketshare. this is because they've differentiated themselves enough to extract up to a 25% margin on their personal computers. in a market slowdown like we're seeing, Compaq and the likes can't help but be jealous with their measly margins. they like their server or laptop business where they too extract margins around 20% (note how even Apple can be very price competitive in the laptop market).
as long as the computer companies can sufficiently differentiate their product they'll be able to charge higher margins, period. that's why you'll see a lot more of these non-upgradeable proprietary computers. very few people here like that idea, but then most of the people here are concerned with cost above all, regardless of form. i think you'll find most people with a fair amount of disposable income will go with these new Compaq boxes, for better or for worse. i like them personally, but then i'm a Mac user too;).
yeah i remember using Fnord! in 1996 or so for my personal web site. wasn't Brian Morin involved in the ANSI art scene or something? i know a lot of ANSI scene people used Fnord! to host their art sites. i didn't know it was GPL though, but perhaps that's a recent thing.
hah, that's classic! still a little pet peeve of mine is when shareware authors say:
"you should pay the shareware fee to help ensure future development of the product."
because if the shareware author's motives for the payment were to "ensure future development" they would opensource the project instead. i have no problems with the shareware concept, but pretending that the program will only progress with money is a lame excuse for extracting a fee.
the only people who use Linux because it's inexpensive are the cheap bastards here on slashdot who expect everything for free. the rest of use use it because it can be easily ported, doesn't lock you into one vendor, and provides a better starting point than developing something in-house.
haha, this is so funny because i think you're actually serious. there are shitloads of companies suporting the MIPS processor and it's extrememly popular in the embedded market. there are a hel of a lot of devices that you probably use on a daily basis that use a MIPS processor, not to mention all the Cisco equipment this message passes through to get to you.
for a group that's supposedly in tune with technology it suprises me how many of the slashbots are so unbelieveably igornant. if it's not a PC it doesn't matter i guess. hah.
They switched to ADC so you'd have to buy THEIR monitor. Gutsy move...it could bring them more profit or it could make the total cost of owning an Apple too high for some.
well actually a VGA port is available right beside the ADC port on all Macs too so you can use whatever monitor you want. also it should be noted that the Apple ADC connector is an open standard and is a valid "take" on the "Plug and Display" standard. it's just a DVI connection with power and USB as well. the real reason it's used over DVI is to cut down on cable clutter.
sure Apple is the only one using this standard connection right now, but that doesn't make it proprietary as many seem to think. there's nothing stopping other companies from making ADC LCD monitors and as a result it's nothing like the old proprietary monitor interfaces that Apple used years ago.
there is so much Apple ignorance on slashdot these days yet people still seem to find it necessary to spout off any assumptions they have as if they're facts. grab a clue or stop posting, retards.
And given that this market has long been a mac stronghold, I really, seriously, honestly can't imagine what they're thinking.
they're thinking that real professionals can get a pro-level monitor elsewhere for cheaper perhaps? besides, i've never seen a true graphic designer that had a monitor under 21" and Apple hasn't made a 21" monitor in years (they only just now dropped their only CRT, the 17"). professional designers have always bought 3rd party monitors. nothing has changed here.
well i think what it comes down to (as was alluded in the story) is that Apple didn't really make much money selling CRTs. it's a commodity market with not much room for margins and they decided that CRT vendors could make CRTs better and cheaper than Apple can.
i completely agree with this. if you want a good CRT, go buy a Sony, a LaCie or something similar (incidentally while you can get a 19" for $200, they're really shitty monitors). if you want a great LCD (and the Apple LCDs are great) then buy from Apple. but really, your computer vendor doesn't need to be your CRT vendor.
this "LCD-only" story is being blown way out of proportion on all the news sites. Macs still come with a VGA adapter and you can buy any monitor you want. it's not like Apple is forcing LCDs down your throat. the only down side is that your 3rd party monitor doesn't match your pretty cube. boo hoo.
also as others have noted the slashdot write up is incorrect: MacOS 9 is still the default, but MacOS X is now available too.
Say you're selling a toaster and you want to keep your proprietary toasting algorithm private, but its running on Linux. Can you do that since you are really selling hardware? Or do you have to GPL your software as well?
well seeing as i was at the Applied Computing Conference today and had this very chat with some of the Linux vendors, i'll field this question.
if a hardware company embeds Linux and makes changes to kernel then yes, they have to release the changes under the GPL. however 99% of all value-add is in drivers and application-level software, not in changes to the kernel. as you probably know, drivers and applications can be whatever license they want to be so this isn't a limiting factor in the decision to use Linux. sure the kernel is GPL, but all of the value-add can be closed source.
Linux is taking off like crazy in the embedded market because there are no per-unit royalty fees. this is particularly nice in very high volume applications, as once you get the operating system running you never need to pay another dime! of course Linux still hasn't got the realtime performance of a tried and true RTOS, but it's getting there. the embedded market is definitely somewhere where Linux can shine.
it also seems that updates roll in earlier changes you may have missed. for instance if if you didn't install 10.0.2, 10.0.3 was 15Mb. if you did install 10.0.2 then 10.0.3 was only 500Kb.
the updates aren't extremely fine-grained (ie. all "system software" always comes in one update and there's no way to pick-and-choose the bits) but some things are separated, like the updated Epson Printer Drivers, so you can opt to not installs those parts if you don't need them. all updates are optional as well, and nothing is done 100% automatically without the user at the very least ok-ing the components to be installed.
it's not perfect yet, but all in all i'd say that it's a great system they've got going. as for the frequency of the updates i don't see this "frustration" talked about in the article. in fact the vast majority of Mac users i've talked to love the frequent updates.
really though it sounds like these people bitching about the system are those who have never actually tried it themselves!
it should be noted that 10.0.3 was only 15MB if you didn't install 10.0.1 and/or 10.0.2. software update seems to detect what you've installed, and if you haven't upgrade your last "n" patches, it rolls them all up into one. i had installed 10.0.2, so 10.0.3 was less than a 500kb update for me.
this is great of course: if you want to upgrade your box every few days with every little update you can. alternatively if you only want to upgrade every six months you can do that also as all of the previous patches that you missed will be rolled into one big update for you.
additionally these updates also include security fixes (ie ftpd was upgraded in 10.0.3) which is necessary for any serious unix-like system.
in the end the way Apple is doing their updates is exactly as it should be. it's elegant, it doesn't force you to do it if you don't want to and it keeps your software up-to-date with the latest security patches. the only potential issues i can find right now are that there's no clean way to uninstall a patch if there's a problem, and they don't provide a lot of information with each patch. i'm not sure about the technical issues regarding the former, but with any luck the latter will be improved upon soon with enough feedback (that Apple actually seems to be reading!!)
anyhow this story is very troll-like, but i've seen it a lot around the 'net: there's a lot of people out there who have never tried MacOS X and jump to conclusions all the time. it's like they're going out of their way to find every reason not to like it. oh well, their loss.
how the hell is PPC a "niche player?" PPC is no more a "niche" chip than x86 is a "niche" chip (after all, you rarely see it out of the "PC niche"). sure PPC may not be in many PCs, but christ man look around you: PCs are not the be all and end all of computing!
Oh, and it's (an admittedly broken version of) php4 that ships with OS X. nobody seems to know why it doesn't work.
i thought it was well known why PHP4 that ships with MacOS X doesn't work. PHP4 has a directory called PEAR in one directory, but also has a file named pear in that same directory. MacOS X's file system defaults to HFS+ which isn't case sensitive. if you use the UFS file system instead you'll have no problems whatsoever. this has been documented on many sites, including stepwise and php builder.
you're absolutely right, and i agree with you that your company doesn't care for you -- it's a business relationship. that's fine of course, but you have to realize that business is money, period, not friends or people you appreciate. that i agree with.
i don't agree with you however, that you should just treat work as a "service." i think it's very important to try to enjoy what you do, at least to a certain extent. if you're putting in a big chunk of your waking hours into it (and by that i mean anything over 30 hours a week) you should be getting more than just money or you won't be happy in the long run. you don't have to love your job, but treating it as just a service isn't the way to look at it. we're people, not machines, and we need more than just money.
let's face it, after you have enough to have a place to live and the necessities you require, everything after that is just gravy. it's better to please yourself than to acquire more cash. it'll keep you happy and make you think better of yourself and your life. as it's been said, how many people sit on their death bed and think "wow, i should've worked more overtime.":)
i agree, and this is what has pissed me off about this "open source community" as of late. i'm a long time UNIX and Linux user, and recently i've been really enjoying using MacOS X as my desktop operating system. i love what Apple has provided to darwin and the underlying system and how helpful their developers have been with any problem i've had with MacOS X. i think what Apple has done is great, and i think it's a huge step forward from the completely closed software days.
but of course that's not good enough for the so-called "open source community." Apple made a huge change in offering the kernel and underlying system to their primary operating system open source, but instead of applauding this behaviour the "community" instead turns around and says "great, what are you going to give us next?"
it's never good enough. these people only want one thing: everybody else's cool stuff. well tough! Apple has provided a lot of valuable information with regards to Darwin and they have offered their code back to the community. but that doesn't mean they owe you all of their past technologies too! if you don't like it fine, don't use it, and go program it yourself in Linux. but of course that's not possible as i imagine the vast majority of people bitching about Apple's behaviour have never written a useful piece of open-sourced code in their lives.
for the rest of us, we'll just be happy using by far the best desktop operating system ever written. and we'll be quite happy with whatever code Apple lets us improve.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe it would even provide a gentle trickling sound and you could save money by not buying a yuppie rock fountain ;)
- j
seriously. people may scoff at Apple, but i worked on a cube with an LCD monitor in a quiet room for a while and it was increadible! i'm one of those people who likes his workspace to be quiet (i don't listen to music while i work either) so it was a very refreshing change.
if you don't want a Mac then i would suggest a well designed laptop, like an IBM thinkpad (perhaps with an external monitor?). although you'd better get a pad for it that allows airflow underneath it or the fan will come on quite often (i use a RoadTools Pivot 360 at work).
it's a rough life for us obsessed with quiet. :) what's really strange though is that while i insist on near silence when doing computer work, my hobby is DJing at insanely loud raves and clubs! :)
- j
well i think it comes down to the fact that wood is very expensive. all the slashdot geeks would just say "bah, why would i pay for wood when i can just get a big ol' metal case?" :)
but i digress. i heard a while back (while i was living in the Bay Area) of a guy that paid a professional woodworker to exactly replicate the plastic covers of a PowerMac G3 case (the same case they use for the current G4s) out of oak. i guess it cost him hundreds of dollars, but damn that would be a nice looking case. does anybody know this guy? i'd love to see a picture of that case!
- j
i have a question: why do we care so much about this? why does speed even matter? i think this is a symptom of long-time computer geeks still obsessed with who has the "fastest" computer. i realized a couple of years ago that computers these days are really fucking fast. i do a lot of photoshop work, compiling and other processor-intensive tasks but i've very quickly realized that:
as a result i stopped looking at "megahertz" a long time ago. what cares to me is, can i get my work done, and is it enjoyable? as a result i use a Windows laptop at work, a Mac desktop at home and a Linux box for my server. i "know" what speed they are but that was of absolutely no consequence to me. instead i thought to myself "what is the most productive and enjoyable way of getting done what i need to do?" then i bought the computer and installed the operating system that fit.
i suggest you take a break from the benchmarks and come back to reality for a moment. if a Macintosh doesn't do what you want it to do at the right price point then fine, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they're any less useful just because they're "slower." even Macs have their place in the world, and the slashdot geeks would significantly lower their stress levels if they stopped thinking so much about it. get the computer that works for you at the price you're comfortable with, end of story. desktop computers are more than fast enough to do just about anything you'd want to do anyhow.
- j
this isn't actually "meant" to be a server at all. Intrinsyc is a consulting company, and this board is just a base that they use for many of their customer designs. putting it into a neat-looking cube was only for the demoabilty, and they're only selling it because they got a lot of people asking them if they could buy one. that's it. they're expensive because they're not made in volume but they're also not trying to make any serious income off of it. it's a proof-of-concept box, nothing more. (and it is pretty cool -- you should see it in "real life")
- j
... or Copa Cabana.
- j
But, none of this is rocket-science, which is why the automobile industry doesn't have the same Soviet-style organization as the computer industry. Oh, what? It turns out style sells just as it sells cars? I guess I've committed Slashdot heresy and will go to the corner and administer myself lashes. Meanwhile, here's to your Turbo buttons.
sure, it's all pretty obvious that the computer market will eventually be like the automotive market and these compaq designs are just the first step in that direction. i also believe that computers are going to move away from the quantitative component model to a solution-style sell. people will buy x "computer" that lets them do a, b & c. Mhz, processor, RAM and everything else will be nothing more than a footnote at the end of the user's manual.
Apple has already started along this path with their recent move into retail, and i don't think they'll be alone for long. the slashdot crew is going to have to get used to the fact that computers are not going to be like they are now for much longer, and the idea of the beige box under the desk and "built it yourself" computers will be a very antiquated idea for only old people (us) (kinda like the way we look at old mainframes today).
all in all i think it's for the best, but it's funny to watch all the long-time computer geeks fight it as much as possible. i wonder if a similar thing happened with automotive "gear heads" back many years ago? "bah, who's going to buy a car for that much when it only has x horsepower? leather seats? fancy colours? nobody's going to buy that!" ;)
- j
Ill keep things natural and suggest cannabis.
well cannabis doesn't do much except make you forgetful and stupid which doesn't make you a very effective person while it's relieving pain. codeine is nice, but it requires a perscription. personally i suggest cocaine as it's "natural" as well, doesn't require a perscription, relieves pain AND it makes you more productive (longer attention span, easier to concentrate).
...or you could just get a better chair. your choice.
- j
i believe that a lot of these PC manufacturers are going to move to designs such as this. the PC market has become a commodity of "cheap parts" that can be slapped together easily. "brand name" manufacturers are looking for ways of differentiating themselves from mom&pop computer store-style computers as they can't compete on the very thin margins of PCs (well under 5%). they need to make something sufficiently different from the do-it-yourself computer world so they can extract higher margins for their computers.
Apple has 5% of the desktop market for personal computers yet they make more money than PC manufacturers with double that marketshare. this is because they've differentiated themselves enough to extract up to a 25% margin on their personal computers. in a market slowdown like we're seeing, Compaq and the likes can't help but be jealous with their measly margins. they like their server or laptop business where they too extract margins around 20% (note how even Apple can be very price competitive in the laptop market).
as long as the computer companies can sufficiently differentiate their product they'll be able to charge higher margins, period. that's why you'll see a lot more of these non-upgradeable proprietary computers. very few people here like that idea, but then most of the people here are concerned with cost above all, regardless of form. i think you'll find most people with a fair amount of disposable income will go with these new Compaq boxes, for better or for worse. i like them personally, but then i'm a Mac user too ;).
- j
yeah i remember using Fnord! in 1996 or so for my personal web site. wasn't Brian Morin involved in the ANSI art scene or something? i know a lot of ANSI scene people used Fnord! to host their art sites. i didn't know it was GPL though, but perhaps that's a recent thing.
- j
hah, that's classic! still a little pet peeve of mine is when shareware authors say:
"you should pay the shareware fee to help ensure future development of the product."
because if the shareware author's motives for the payment were to "ensure future development" they would opensource the project instead. i have no problems with the shareware concept, but pretending that the program will only progress with money is a lame excuse for extracting a fee.
- j
the only people who use Linux because it's inexpensive are the cheap bastards here on slashdot who expect everything for free. the rest of use use it because it can be easily ported, doesn't lock you into one vendor, and provides a better starting point than developing something in-house.
- j
MIPS (whose supporting that anymore?)
haha, this is so funny because i think you're actually serious. there are shitloads of companies suporting the MIPS processor and it's extrememly popular in the embedded market. there are a hel of a lot of devices that you probably use on a daily basis that use a MIPS processor, not to mention all the Cisco equipment this message passes through to get to you.
for a group that's supposedly in tune with technology it suprises me how many of the slashbots are so unbelieveably igornant. if it's not a PC it doesn't matter i guess. hah.
- j
It's not even a adapter. It's a regular VGA output port.
sorry, that's what i meant. you're right: it's a regular VGA port and an ADC port. sorry about the confusion.
- j
They switched to ADC so you'd have to buy THEIR monitor. Gutsy move...it could bring them more profit or it could make the total cost of owning an Apple too high for some.
well actually a VGA port is available right beside the ADC port on all Macs too so you can use whatever monitor you want. also it should be noted that the Apple ADC connector is an open standard and is a valid "take" on the "Plug and Display" standard. it's just a DVI connection with power and USB as well. the real reason it's used over DVI is to cut down on cable clutter.
sure Apple is the only one using this standard connection right now, but that doesn't make it proprietary as many seem to think. there's nothing stopping other companies from making ADC LCD monitors and as a result it's nothing like the old proprietary monitor interfaces that Apple used years ago.
there is so much Apple ignorance on slashdot these days yet people still seem to find it necessary to spout off any assumptions they have as if they're facts. grab a clue or stop posting, retards.
- j
And given that this market has long been a mac stronghold, I really, seriously, honestly can't imagine what they're thinking.
they're thinking that real professionals can get a pro-level monitor elsewhere for cheaper perhaps? besides, i've never seen a true graphic designer that had a monitor under 21" and Apple hasn't made a 21" monitor in years (they only just now dropped their only CRT, the 17"). professional designers have always bought 3rd party monitors. nothing has changed here.
- j
well i think what it comes down to (as was alluded in the story) is that Apple didn't really make much money selling CRTs. it's a commodity market with not much room for margins and they decided that CRT vendors could make CRTs better and cheaper than Apple can.
i completely agree with this. if you want a good CRT, go buy a Sony, a LaCie or something similar (incidentally while you can get a 19" for $200, they're really shitty monitors). if you want a great LCD (and the Apple LCDs are great) then buy from Apple. but really, your computer vendor doesn't need to be your CRT vendor.
this "LCD-only" story is being blown way out of proportion on all the news sites. Macs still come with a VGA adapter and you can buy any monitor you want. it's not like Apple is forcing LCDs down your throat. the only down side is that your 3rd party monitor doesn't match your pretty cube. boo hoo.
also as others have noted the slashdot write up is incorrect: MacOS 9 is still the default, but MacOS X is now available too.
- j
Say you're selling a toaster and you want to keep your proprietary toasting algorithm private, but its running on Linux. Can you do that since you are really selling hardware? Or do you have to GPL your software as well?
well seeing as i was at the Applied Computing Conference today and had this very chat with some of the Linux vendors, i'll field this question.
if a hardware company embeds Linux and makes changes to kernel then yes, they have to release the changes under the GPL. however 99% of all value-add is in drivers and application-level software, not in changes to the kernel. as you probably know, drivers and applications can be whatever license they want to be so this isn't a limiting factor in the decision to use Linux. sure the kernel is GPL, but all of the value-add can be closed source.
Linux is taking off like crazy in the embedded market because there are no per-unit royalty fees. this is particularly nice in very high volume applications, as once you get the operating system running you never need to pay another dime! of course Linux still hasn't got the realtime performance of a tried and true RTOS, but it's getting there. the embedded market is definitely somewhere where Linux can shine.
- j
it also seems that updates roll in earlier changes you may have missed. for instance if if you didn't install 10.0.2, 10.0.3 was 15Mb. if you did install 10.0.2 then 10.0.3 was only 500Kb.
the updates aren't extremely fine-grained (ie. all "system software" always comes in one update and there's no way to pick-and-choose the bits) but some things are separated, like the updated Epson Printer Drivers, so you can opt to not installs those parts if you don't need them. all updates are optional as well, and nothing is done 100% automatically without the user at the very least ok-ing the components to be installed.
it's not perfect yet, but all in all i'd say that it's a great system they've got going. as for the frequency of the updates i don't see this "frustration" talked about in the article. in fact the vast majority of Mac users i've talked to love the frequent updates.
really though it sounds like these people bitching about the system are those who have never actually tried it themselves!
- j
it should be noted that 10.0.3 was only 15MB if you didn't install 10.0.1 and/or 10.0.2. software update seems to detect what you've installed, and if you haven't upgrade your last "n" patches, it rolls them all up into one. i had installed 10.0.2, so 10.0.3 was less than a 500kb update for me.
this is great of course: if you want to upgrade your box every few days with every little update you can. alternatively if you only want to upgrade every six months you can do that also as all of the previous patches that you missed will be rolled into one big update for you.
additionally these updates also include security fixes (ie ftpd was upgraded in 10.0.3) which is necessary for any serious unix-like system.
in the end the way Apple is doing their updates is exactly as it should be. it's elegant, it doesn't force you to do it if you don't want to and it keeps your software up-to-date with the latest security patches. the only potential issues i can find right now are that there's no clean way to uninstall a patch if there's a problem, and they don't provide a lot of information with each patch. i'm not sure about the technical issues regarding the former, but with any luck the latter will be improved upon soon with enough feedback (that Apple actually seems to be reading!!)
anyhow this story is very troll-like, but i've seen it a lot around the 'net: there's a lot of people out there who have never tried MacOS X and jump to conclusions all the time. it's like they're going out of their way to find every reason not to like it. oh well, their loss.
- j
- j
Great stable operating system with acceptable driver support and a decent GUI would *really* have been successful.
well you're in luck, as the operating system you describe exists and it's called MacOS X! :P
- j
Oh, and it's (an admittedly broken version of) php4 that ships with OS X. nobody seems to know why it doesn't work.
i thought it was well known why PHP4 that ships with MacOS X doesn't work. PHP4 has a directory called PEAR in one directory, but also has a file named pear in that same directory. MacOS X's file system defaults to HFS+ which isn't case sensitive. if you use the UFS file system instead you'll have no problems whatsoever. this has been documented on many sites, including stepwise and php builder.
- j
you're absolutely right, and i agree with you that your company doesn't care for you -- it's a business relationship. that's fine of course, but you have to realize that business is money, period, not friends or people you appreciate. that i agree with.
i don't agree with you however, that you should just treat work as a "service." i think it's very important to try to enjoy what you do, at least to a certain extent. if you're putting in a big chunk of your waking hours into it (and by that i mean anything over 30 hours a week) you should be getting more than just money or you won't be happy in the long run. you don't have to love your job, but treating it as just a service isn't the way to look at it. we're people, not machines, and we need more than just money.
let's face it, after you have enough to have a place to live and the necessities you require, everything after that is just gravy. it's better to please yourself than to acquire more cash. it'll keep you happy and make you think better of yourself and your life. as it's been said, how many people sit on their death bed and think "wow, i should've worked more overtime." :)
- j
i agree, and this is what has pissed me off about this "open source community" as of late. i'm a long time UNIX and Linux user, and recently i've been really enjoying using MacOS X as my desktop operating system. i love what Apple has provided to darwin and the underlying system and how helpful their developers have been with any problem i've had with MacOS X. i think what Apple has done is great, and i think it's a huge step forward from the completely closed software days.
but of course that's not good enough for the so-called "open source community." Apple made a huge change in offering the kernel and underlying system to their primary operating system open source, but instead of applauding this behaviour the "community" instead turns around and says "great, what are you going to give us next?"
it's never good enough. these people only want one thing: everybody else's cool stuff. well tough! Apple has provided a lot of valuable information with regards to Darwin and they have offered their code back to the community. but that doesn't mean they owe you all of their past technologies too! if you don't like it fine, don't use it, and go program it yourself in Linux. but of course that's not possible as i imagine the vast majority of people bitching about Apple's behaviour have never written a useful piece of open-sourced code in their lives.
for the rest of us, we'll just be happy using by far the best desktop operating system ever written. and we'll be quite happy with whatever code Apple lets us improve.
- j