True enough, except on MacOS you wouldn't end up with multiple instances of one program anyway (even if you find the application in the Finder and click on it again, that has the effect of sending a "reopen" event to the running process rather than launching a new instance). To an extent you can fool the mechanism (e.g. by duplicating the application file and running the two distinct copies of it) but I would worry about race conditions in the ownership of preference files, and so on.
For that reason, most (though admittedly not all) MacOS applications do internally support multiple windows in a single instance of the application.
Tell me, why is it better to have these bunched together into a single menu where you can't differentiate what's open and what isn't?
In many ways, it doesn't matter whether an application is currently running or not.
You want to use it? You click on it.
The advantage is that it's in the same place every time, whether running or not. Sure, if it needs to launch the application then you might have a delay for a few seconds first, but otherwise the resulting behaviour should be pretty similar in both cases. (i.e. if a text editing application is running but has no windows open, then clicking on it in the dock will open a new window - just as opening the application would. The HIG documents mandate this.)
If background applications are intelligent about not using CPU time, and the OS is clever about paging out unused code - then there's little reason you should ever need to quit an application. It therefore makes little sense of Apple to optimize their UI for two different cases, when a simplified version will handle both adequately.
written on it. What the hell do they sell? *Do* they in fact sell ink? Do they offer "ink solutions"? (whatever the hell they are) Do they sell printing? Do they process squid? I have no bloody idea. What if I just wanted ink? Sod it. It's easier to phone someone else.
This intrigued me, so I looked them up on Google - and, while I still don't know what they actually sell, I did find an explanation for their slogan:
"More than Ink Solutions is a commitment to provide the latest in technology, technical support and training as well as business building programs all geared toward improving your bottom line."
Furthermore:
They are "committed to continuous innovation in products and services all designed to anticipate market needs"
They offer "Innovative Business Partnering Programs"
They have "Strategically Located Distribution Centers & Technical Sales Managers"
And of course they are "leading the way with innovative processes designed to increase efficiency and maximize profits."
Also, the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii all have USB ports and can support keyboard and mouse. I wish publisher would stop assuming that console = gamepad and make console games that require keyboard+mouse.
These aren't exotic accessories that cost a fortune and are only available from a handful of manufacturers.
I don't know about you, but I don't have a desk set up in my living room in front of the television. Any game which required mouse control would be absolutely no use to me.
Would you expect your government to legislate against a business model that brings in a large amount of foreign currency?
There are a number of areas in which they already do. Why legislate against, say, class A drugs, when instead you could regulate and tax them? Presumably they perceive the downsides as being more significant than the potential profits.
Are there any legitimate reasons to operate or employ a CAPCTHA solving business? The only uses I can think of involve spamming forums or identity theft. Why are these companies allowed to operate? If it were in the U.K., it could very well be in voliation of the Computer Misuse Act - do they not have equivalent legislation over there?
So when they do include software for free, they are killing markets and competing unfairly (ie, wmp...) when they aren't doing it, they clearly lack features found elsewhere.
No. They are killing markets and competing unfairly when they tie their resellers into illegal licensing deals which prevent anyone from bundling other competing applications except the ones which Microsoft supply.
In other words, supplying Internet Explorer for free with Windows was not the problem. The problem was that no OEM was allowed to pre-install Netscape on the same terms.
we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...
Why didn't she just restore from the backups you've been helping her keep?
No, I think he meant "There is no skills shortage in the UK. There is a shortage of decent employers, so all the skills are fucking off to the US and Canada where they can support themselves in the game industry without being a bartender in their spare time."
Worse than that! Why don't they trust me not to be an idiot instead of requiring that I use a different browser due to the fact that other users of other browsers are idiots?
Why would the caller know what a question was really trying to get at? They didn't design the questions, they're paid minimum wage to read from a script.
Whew. For a moment there, I thought that watching movies without paying wasn't "okay", but it turns out they're still making money from other suckers, I mean, customers. So I'm glad we got that tricky dilemma sorted out.
Remember, these were the XT/AT/x386 days. It was easier to munge than waste CPU cycles and memory doing conversions. I don't buy that. You convert the file only once, alternatively you waste cycles munging your calculations at runtime for the life of the document.
From Joel's FA:
There are two kinds of Excel worksheets: those where the epoch for dates is 1/1/1900 (with a leap-year bug deliberately created for 1-2-3 compatibility that is too boring to describe here), and those where the epoch for dates is 1/1/1904. Excel supports both because the first version of Excel, for the Mac, just used that operating system's epoch because that was easy, but Excel for Windows had to be able to import 1-2-3 files, which used 1/1/1900 for the epoch. It's enough to bring you to tears. At no point in history did a programmer ever not do the right thing, but there you have it. Nonsense.
When Excel started importing 1-2-3 documents, the right way to do that would be to create an importer to your own native format. Not to munge a new slightly different format into your existing structures. Yes, you'd have had to convert some dates between 1900 and 1904 formats (and maybe, detect cases where the old 1-2-3 bug could have affected the result) but at least you wouldn't be trying to maintain two formats for the rest of time.
If this is an example of programmers throughout history always doing exactly the right thing, I'd hate to see an example of code where the original author regretted some mistakes that had been made.
If the charge is anything other than $0, it becomes impractical for third party developers to offer their apps for free. Does it? I'd gladly pay $1 to release -anything- I wrote for the iPhone. I'd pay $10 to release anything worthwhile. And I'd pay $25 to release anything awesome that I wrote. Ok, so you'd pay $25 just for the first release, or for every subsequent minor version?
Who knows? It isn't completely implausible. Perhaps if the file size grows beyond 2 gig is splits out the subsequent rendering into a separate file (in order to avoid 31-bit limits in some applications' file handling code) and forgets to set correct permissions on the new one?
Your link does not mention drm at all (in fact, discussing a different problem to the "disables video application" bug which everybody else is talking about). I didn't say you could fix either problem with chmod.
I repeat my question - who says this got anything to do with DRM? I also didn't say Apple haven't messed up - they probably have. But I did say it was probably not deliberate, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I still consider this a cock-up and not a conspiracy.
All the error message says is "You do not have permission to open this file" - you know, like file permissions, like chmod. It could just be that Quicktime has accidentally set the wrong flags on a temporary file.
There are a lot of people very quick to jump on the bandwagon, saying "DRM this" and "Defective By Design that" but I see nothing to suggest this has anything to do with DRM. Even less to suggest this was a deliberate move by Apple. (And even then, the headline "Disables Video Editing Apps" is sensationalist - only one application seems to be affected).
So what remains as fact: Apple have a introduced a bug in an update to a shared library - so what? It's hardly the first time this has happened, on any OS. And maybe not even that - perhaps it's even possible that QuickTime is correct, and the change has just exposed a latent bug in AfterEffects? We just don't have the data to make a judgment, so perhaps everyone could calm down and stop acting like Apple is chained to Hollywood and making the sky fall in.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough, except on MacOS you wouldn't end up with multiple instances of one program anyway (even if you find the application in the Finder and click on it again, that has the effect of sending a "reopen" event to the running process rather than launching a new instance). To an extent you can fool the mechanism (e.g. by duplicating the application file and running the two distinct copies of it) but I would worry about race conditions in the ownership of preference files, and so on.
For that reason, most (though admittedly not all) MacOS applications do internally support multiple windows in a single instance of the application.
Tell me, why is it better to have these bunched together into a single menu where you can't differentiate what's open and what isn't?
In many ways, it doesn't matter whether an application is currently running or not.
You want to use it? You click on it.
The advantage is that it's in the same place every time, whether running or not. Sure, if it needs to launch the application then you might have a delay for a few seconds first, but otherwise the resulting behaviour should be pretty similar in both cases. (i.e. if a text editing application is running but has no windows open, then clicking on it in the dock will open a new window - just as opening the application would. The HIG documents mandate this.)
If background applications are intelligent about not using CPU time, and the OS is clever about paging out unused code - then there's little reason you should ever need to quit an application. It therefore makes little sense of Apple to optimize their UI for two different cases, when a simplified version will handle both adequately.
Sericol. More than ink. Solutions.
written on it. What the hell do they sell? *Do* they in fact sell ink? Do they offer "ink solutions"? (whatever the hell they are) Do they sell printing? Do they process squid? I have no bloody idea. What if I just wanted ink? Sod it. It's easier to phone someone else.
This intrigued me, so I looked them up on Google - and, while I still don't know what they actually sell, I did find an explanation for their slogan:
"More than Ink Solutions is a commitment to provide the latest in technology, technical support and training as well as business building programs all geared toward improving your bottom line."
Furthermore:
I hope that clears things up for you.
I don't know about you, but I don't have a desk set up in my living room in front of the television.
And unfolding a little TV tray is too complicated?
Ergonomic nightmare!
Also, the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii all have USB ports and can support keyboard and mouse. I wish publisher would stop assuming that console = gamepad and make console games that require keyboard+mouse.
These aren't exotic accessories that cost a fortune and are only available from a handful of manufacturers.
I don't know about you, but I don't have a desk set up in my living room in front of the television. Any game which required mouse control would be absolutely no use to me.
Would you expect your government to legislate against a business model that brings in a large amount of foreign currency?
There are a number of areas in which they already do. Why legislate against, say, class A drugs, when instead you could regulate and tax them? Presumably they perceive the downsides as being more significant than the potential profits.
Are there any legitimate reasons to operate or employ a CAPCTHA solving business? The only uses I can think of involve spamming forums or identity theft. Why are these companies allowed to operate? If it were in the U.K., it could very well be in voliation of the Computer Misuse Act - do they not have equivalent legislation over there?
If Microsoft had a magical "one-hit-kill" bullet that could eliminate just ONE major competitor, they'd pick Google, not Apple.
But of course.
Without Apple, where would Microsoft get their R&D?
So when they do include software for free, they are killing markets and competing unfairly (ie, wmp...) when they aren't doing it, they clearly lack features found elsewhere.
No. They are killing markets and competing unfairly when they tie their resellers into illegal licensing deals which prevent anyone from bundling other competing applications except the ones which Microsoft supply.
In other words, supplying Internet Explorer for free with Windows was not the problem. The problem was that no OEM was allowed to pre-install Netscape on the same terms.
Exactly which of my words implied that anything was in the singular form?
From TFA:
(DRAM needs to be refreshed constantly otherwise it will loose it's data)
Fly, little data! Be free!
we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...
Why didn't she just restore from the backups you've been helping her keep?
I don't run the policy at work, but all my home computers recently I've named after moons of Saturn (which would scale up to a network of 60).
My PowerMac G5? The biggest case I've ever owned - that was called Titan. (Incidentally, my iPod which connects to it is called Huygens.)
When I get the new iMac? Black on one side, white on the other - that will be Iapetus.
My first Intel-based Mac was a laptop which I called Pandora, mostly because I suspected that the thing inside would turn out to be evil.
No, I think he meant "There is no skills shortage in the UK. There is a shortage of decent employers, so all the skills are fucking off to the US and Canada where they can support themselves in the game industry without being a bartender in their spare time."
Worse than that! Why don't they trust me not to be an idiot instead of requiring that I use a different browser due to the fact that other users of other browsers are idiots?
Why would the caller know what a question was really trying to get at? They didn't design the questions, they're paid minimum wage to read from a script.
Whew. For a moment there, I thought that watching movies without paying wasn't "okay", but it turns out they're still making money from other suckers, I mean, customers. So I'm glad we got that tricky dilemma sorted out.
When Excel started importing 1-2-3 documents, the right way to do that would be to create an importer to your own native format. Not to munge a new slightly different format into your existing structures. Yes, you'd have had to convert some dates between 1900 and 1904 formats (and maybe, detect cases where the old 1-2-3 bug could have affected the result) but at least you wouldn't be trying to maintain two formats for the rest of time.
If this is an example of programmers throughout history always doing exactly the right thing, I'd hate to see an example of code where the original author regretted some mistakes that had been made.
Who are Gen Con? What is Gen Con indie? Why is Lucas suing them?
Is it too much to ask for you to put a summary of the story in the summary?
Who knows? It isn't completely implausible. Perhaps if the file size grows beyond 2 gig is splits out the subsequent rendering into a separate file (in order to avoid 31-bit limits in some applications' file handling code) and forgets to set correct permissions on the new one?
Your link does not mention drm at all (in fact, discussing a different problem to the "disables video application" bug which everybody else is talking about). I didn't say you could fix either problem with chmod.
I repeat my question - who says this got anything to do with DRM? I also didn't say Apple haven't messed up - they probably have. But I did say it was probably not deliberate, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I still consider this a cock-up and not a conspiracy.
If you're an individual and not a post production facility, test the upgrade on a separate partition or physical volume.
If you're an individual and not a post production facility, what are the chances of you having an extra Mac lying around to test?
Good point, maybe instead you could perform your software testing on a separate partition or physical volume, or something.
All the error message says is "You do not have permission to open this file" - you know, like file permissions, like chmod. It could just be that Quicktime has accidentally set the wrong flags on a temporary file.
There are a lot of people very quick to jump on the bandwagon, saying "DRM this" and "Defective By Design that" but I see nothing to suggest this has anything to do with DRM. Even less to suggest this was a deliberate move by Apple. (And even then, the headline "Disables Video Editing Apps" is sensationalist - only one application seems to be affected).
So what remains as fact: Apple have a introduced a bug in an update to a shared library - so what? It's hardly the first time this has happened, on any OS. And maybe not even that - perhaps it's even possible that QuickTime is correct, and the change has just exposed a latent bug in AfterEffects? We just don't have the data to make a judgment, so perhaps everyone could calm down and stop acting like Apple is chained to Hollywood and making the sky fall in.