Read the reviews first - at least the last revision I read about (no idea if that's actually the most recent revision) was a bit of a stinker, apparently. Maybe OK for hacking, maybe not...
Excellent! It's very difficult to do long posts in IE, and OmniWeb is a little slow... so replying was difficult for me:)
As far as "scaling to less common cases" is concerned: MacOS, in general, probably scales better than Windows (better support for color-blindness/poor motor skills/less exposure to computers, excellent scripting built-in, etc.). My argument is simply that Apple made an assumption in HFS[+]~18 years ago that doesn't apply very well today.
I very much enjoyed this, and if you'd like to continue any lines of inquiry off/. my e-mail address is functional.
Okay, and extensions are mutable metadata that do not separate file type from favored application (your mutable metametadata).
??? Here's the test: can you change the 'favored application' for a file type without touching a single file (with extensions)? Yes. Can you do so with Creator/Type? No.
Remove Explorer from your system.:-)
So if I were to do so, I could then double-click on any HTML file, and - regardless of how it was set up when Explorer.app was around, it will now automatically open in OmniWeb.app? Oops, no - it won't.
Or use a drag-and-drop utility to change the creator of selected HTML files to something other than Explorer, or write a 5-line AppleScript to do it across whatever subset of your filesystem you wish. How do you do it in Windows or Unix? Bonus question: Can you cleanly remove an app from OS/2, Windows, or Unix by dragging its folder into the trash?
That's a hack and you know it - changing something 'file by file' is not global, but local (all over). The difference is in scalability and robustness. I can't answer how to change the appropriate application in Windows, because I don't use it, and - for Unix - absolutely no 'appropriate application' information is stored (except by 'desktop systems' like KDE, which aren't Unix). As for 'cleanly removing' apps - in Unix, easily. In OS/2- yes. In MacOS - no (see above - anything with a Creator code for presents an unnecessary dialogue if Explorer is gone).
Extension overrides metadata (OS/2). Metadata overrides extension (MacOS). Extension is the only metadata (Windows/Unix). I fail to see how you can maintain that extension-only is better; it looks to me like the Mac way and the OS/2 way you prefer are nearly identical; only the Windows/Unix way is clearly deficient.
No. OS/2 can operate entirely within the confines of file extensions, and still encodes immutable metadata and mutable metametadata separately. What do I mean by separately? By and large, file type is file-specific, so it is stored with the file. "Appropriate application for type" is generally file-type specific (not file-specific), not necessarily 1-1, and not necessarily at all related to the application that created the file. Windows and OS/2 (and maybe KDE or similar) all manage to support all of this, even with extensions.
You apparently want to separate Creator from "Favored viewer". Show me a system that records both. Extensions don't separate these metadata at all, which sounds clearly inferior to me.
Why do you need to store Creator information? What purpose does it serve? I can't show you a system that records both, because the systems with which I'm familiar rightly see no use in recording Creator. The information they record is purely functional - how do you use the file. Extensions are not, to repeat, "type and creator" rolled into one. They are type. Creator is regarded as useless, and application is recorded in a non-1-1 fashion by file type.
To make this clear, consider that you can change the association of your HTML files from Netscape to IE without changing the extension; the file might have been created in FrontPage (shudder), but that doesn't matter on iota.
It looks to me like OS/2 lets the user muck with immutable metadata (by changing the extension). I thought this was supposed to be bad.
It is. It still works better.
The only thing that I see OS/2 do that MacOS doesn't is give the user a menu of apps to open a document. It's a perfectly valid human interface decision to conclude that most users don't want that.
Allow me to clarify the OS/2 system: if you double click on the file, it opens in whatever application is at the head of the list of applications. If you right click on the file, it gives you a menu much like MacOS (with Ctrl-click). One of the options is to open the document in a different application. It is "immediate, intuitive usability" and "extended functionality" rolled into one.
If you do, you can whip up a 15-line AppleScript to do it -- or, just wipe the Creator field of your documents; then MacOS will offer you a menu every time.
HACK ALERT! HACK ALERT! UNSCALABLE NON-ROBUST SOLUTION PROPOSED!:-) Going through file-by-file is inappropriate, and providing the selection every time is tiresome. There is no need for the Creator code.
Drag-to-open is extremely easy.
No. There is no reason to require three Finder windows to be open, or three spaces in the Dock taken, just to be able to open a document in three programs.
It is impossible to support the entire range of what users want to do.
Sure, but "multiple applications for HTML files" isn't very far out there. I was exaggerating to make my point that Creator/Type is excessively limiting.
Perl also has this characteristic: One typo, and you're screwed. Not only do you want the default case to be easy, you want it to be safe too. The default file extension system is not safe. At least, over the years, it has begun to approach easy.
Yes, that's why it was amazing to me that PERL got it right. And while I agree that the default case should be easy (it is, Windows or MacOS), the non-default case is not that hard in Windows. Modern versions of Windows are also somewhat safe (although it required hack upon hack).
The question is whether an extensions-only system (Windows or Unix) is superior to a system with, effectively, two hidden-but-changeable extensions (MacOS Classic). I don't think you have come close to showing that it is.
First: Windows is effectively a "hidden but changeable" system now. Second: MacOS is extremely difficult to change (you confuse "Applescriptable" with "easy," I think). Third: MacOS does not scale well to uncommon cases or large filesystems, but Windows does.
Just to be clear, as I've said before, I'm not arguing file extensions as the Right Way - just better than Creator/Type.
You prefer a system with only one axis for categorizing files
No. I prefer a system where immutable metadata is separated from mutable metadata. File type is immutable metadata, whereas the appropriate application for a file (or file type, really - see below) is mutable metametadata.
where one application on installation hijacks all documents sharing an extension type it recognizes, by default.
It would be preferable to not being able to easily change what application is used by default. But even more preferable would be to have a list of appropriate applications for file types - no hijacking can be done, but new applications do become easily available for old files (something not true with Creator/Type).
The best way I've seen so far is a simple database of applications appropriate for each type, with the ability to modify that list on a file-by-file basis.
MacOS does do pretty much exactly what you request
Excuse me, how do I tell MacOS that Explorer.app, Omniweb.app and TextEdit.app are all appropriate applications for all HTML files? How do I tell MacOS that, universally, Explorer.app is no longer appropriate for any HTML file, except this one over here?
no extension-based system that I've ever heard of does.
OS/2. OS/2 also supported storing this information in a metadata field (the file extension overrode this, so if you used metadata fields you didn't use extensions), and let you assign multiple applications (with one default, the rest available through a context menu) to each type (as well as set exceptions for an individual file).
What are these heretofore-unnamed important principles that these data typing systems violate?
Creator/Type violates the principle that immutable metadata and mutable metametadata be stored separately (the metametadata is "the kind of application(s) appropriate for this metadata type"); that multiple applications should be able to operate on the same file easily; that any sort of data intended to be immutable be sufficiently robust that the user doesn't need to try to change it.
Its default behavior supports what users want to do most of the time.
But it fails to support the entire range of what users want to do. Amazingly, PERL tries to follow a principle relevant to this: "easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."
Changing file extension is easier than Creator/Type because Apple makes it easier (why is it hard in OS 9? No idea). IE keeps dying on me for long responses, (stupid Preview Release of 5.1, I have to get 10.1 installed) so let me just say that the biggest problem is the Creator part. It expects a single, unchanging, application to always open that file, and that is an incorrect expectation that makes it harder to use than (the very horrible) file extension.
Thanks for being so condescending. Let me be clear: I don't like file extensions. It's just that Creator/Type is worse. I'm not a "win-whore," I'm typing this in OS X right now.
I'll respond once regarding JPEG - I was mistaken. Since Show Info doesn't show actual codes, but related strings, I misinterpreted it. As someone else pointed out, of course, this does apply to a few formats like mp3s, where it has bitten me before (that was on a different system a few years ago, and I haven't been able to find the same utility I used for creator/type manipulation since).
My broader point was that castigating file extensions, when they are more usable than the broken system they are replacing, is silly.
I quite agree that MIME types are probably the best way to go - BeOS had them, and OS/2 used them sometimes (to a lesser extent - OS/2's metadata type system predates MIME, but OS/2's flexibility in the matter allowed users to switch to MIME).
His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better than Type/Creator codes.
2 sets of 4 alphanumeric characters is fine for developers, who only have to remember their own Creator and Type codes, but it is inappropriate for the user - the 4 character Type is worse than the the 3 character extension, because at least the extension is common across all applications (compare.jpg with the variety of jpeg Types used in MacOS).
Hard-coded applications for documents is the wrong way to go, and it is built into Creator/Type. The best way I've seen so far is a simple database of applications appropriate for each type, with the ability to modify that list on a file-by-file basis. This can be accomplished with file extensions and a filesystem supported metadata (yes as a hack), but it can't be done with explicitly coded Creator types.
I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not. Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.
LISA is the conference for sysadmins. I went last year, and I was very impressed with the quality of the tutorials, and some of the papers were very interesting as well (and, if nothing else, most of the papers center around how different people solved different problems, so you are exposed to a wide variety of techniques). USENIX Technical Conference is an excellent Unix-oriented programming conference, as well.
You're either letting your privacy be violated to get something free (and let's face it, advertisers won't pay nearly enough to cover a $20/person-month subscription without mucho private info), or you're protecting your privacy by giving them just money.
No, subscriptions are the Right Way to Do It. It costs you money, but we're concerned about free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. Complain about the closed nature of the games first, then we'll talk about the cost (at which point I'll bring up the costs of paying all those developers, admins, and maintaining those servers - and subscriptions will still be the Right Way to Do It).
I've seen Mini-PCI cards that do this (Gateway and IBM stick in some of their laptops). I'm not certain that they don't require an external antenna, but they might work in a random laptop with a Mini-PCI slot, and no other preparation. The whole idea of Mini-PCI was to make the laptops a little more modular, and let laptop makers get new features to market quicker, after all.
Allow folks with concealed cary permits to carry on board.
Before now, I disagreed. I thought, "if we can just keep everyone unarmed in just this tiny span of space-time, it won't be a grand threat to liberty and it will work." Well, apparently it doesn't work, so the same maxim applies: if you strip weapons from law-abiding citizens, then only non-law-abiding citizens will have weapons. Terrorists pretty clearly want very good odds once they get onto the plane - guns against hands is awesome, but knives against hands is good enough - so, let everyone have pistols (yes, including the terrorists, unless you know they're terrorists in which case they shouldn't get on in the first place). The odds are a lot worse for terrorists in a "guns versus guns" scenario - that's why these folks aren't soldiers, they know the odds suck.
There are problems associated with such a plan, but they don't include "well-timed tactical strikes against multiple important locations, killing tens of thousands of people."
Errr... I happen to work in Wean Hall. Classes were cancelled at CMU yesterday, and managers in SCS were encouraged to let their groups go (and across campus, in other schools, likewise AFAIK). However, Wean was not 'evacuated' - I was there for several hours, and there were a few other people there as well. Slashdot, please update this claim - Wean was not evacuated.
First, yes it was on MacSlash. A while ago. Second, it's on Apple's website ("[a]n upgrade CD will be available..." - no mention of a download). It's not a rumor, it's a fact (at least unless Apple changes its mind).
I never heard it was going to be a free download, all I heard was "why isn't it a free download?"
There are quite a few issues bound up in GUI/CLI development wars, and here's my take on a few of them:
IDE, versus separate command line tools: In general, an IDE is essentially an interface designed with the programmer in mind - it accelerates common tasks that a programmer might want to do. In general, the command line is an interface that put some thought into shell programming, but not (e.g.) C programming. Debugging and compiling is nicer in an IDE (and this includes emacs in cc-mode), and a good IDE will handle context-sensitive hypertext in a useful manner (providing the function signature of the function name you're typing in, for example), which will make you more productive in the programming phase. The problem is, a GUI can generally accelerate tasks for which it accounts but can do very little to let you do tasks for which it does not account. So programming with an IDE will probably make you more productive, but the command line can never be too far away. Contrariwise, half a dozen xterms is a very powerful, generic interface that lets you be quite productive in activities surrounding typing in code. Depending upon one's familiarity with the command line, either one is very good.
Developing a GUI through a RAD tool, versus building it programmatically: quite simply, if you're trying to develop a GUI, then use a GUI. NeXTStep/OS X's Interface Builder is the top of the line for this, but most tools are good enough that you will be far more productive putting the interface together through a RAD tool than you will be trying to describe the interface in code. Here's a simple test: how do you design the GUI? Hopefully, with a pencil and paper - if the GUI accounts for Fitt's Law, information prioritization, etc., it's just a lot easier to figure out how things should look by drawing it. Now, which is easier - dragging interface objects around to create a usable representation of that GUI, or specifying the layout piece-by-piece in your code? There's simply no comparison, a GUI-building application should be considered necessary for building GUIs.
My general solution? I use whatever editor is accessible in xterms (or Terminal.app windows) for most of my programming, I use emacs, joe or Project Builder for compiling and debugging, and I use Interface Builder for building the GUI. I can do everything but building the GUI anywhere I find myself, at any computer (and I hop around quite a bit so it's a definite gain over restricting myself to a GUI IDE), and I am able to leverage my knowledge of text editors (held over from writing a lot of non-code documents) in writing code.
You could always look into the solution I found - a Visorphone. Not right for everyone, especially people who do road trips or otherwise get out of range for the digital service the VP supports, but it sure beats doing any work getting phone numbers between your cell phone and your PDA.
Well, if you use RSA you don't need to type a password so that would solve that particular problem.
Just to be clear, you should use a password with RSA keys (otherwise, for instance, root on the system that has your RSA key can impersonate you on the remote system). However, as I understand it, the password used is used to decrypt the RSA key prior to use, and then the decrypted RSA key is used. So yes, it should protect against this (very theoretical) attack.
But then, you were already using RSA keys so that knowing your password on the remote system wasn't sufficient, right?
As an aside, I've found that those cute little credit-card CD-ROMs are excellent for storing your RSA key, and they're usable with just about everything but TiBooks and iMacs - and with the extra space, you can keep known-good SSH binaries for Windows, Mac, and any Unix systems you commonly use on there as well.
No, the iBook's processor really isn't bad at all. Even with the high-end PowerBook eight months ago, for a grand less? Not bad. OS X runs beautifully on mine (typing this from my iBook in OS X right now), although it's not the best system for the pretty demos you give friends. It has the top bang/buck ratio around (my only problem with it is the 'pretty' touchpad, which my fingers frequently tap while I'm typing - I had to turn off clicking with the touchpad because all kinds of crazy things were happening). It also has, IMO, a better keyboard than the TiBook, which command line fans (and/. posters) should keep in mind.
On the other hand, there's hardly a bad word to be said for IBM laptops. I didn't buy one, but I didn't want to spend that much. The ThinkLight is very nice - I wish my iBook had one - and the hardware is top-notch, and widely supported (OS/2, Linux, any BSD, and BeOS is probably fine too). The T series is a phenomenal high-end laptop. And all of IBM's laptops have a fine keyboard.
The X series from IBM is, IMO, the top-of-the-line ultralight - it's as thin as the TiBook without the media slice (which is a reasonable comparison), but can include the media slice when you need it. It also weighs a couple of pounds less, which is what is really important in an ultra-light.
For cheap, get the iBook; for expensive, get the T22 (unless you wanna do a lot of Firewire, in which case a PCMCIA Firewire adapter might not cut it - get the TiBook); for ultralight, get the X21.
Well... Sony's not following your suggestion with the PS2. They put a DVD player in a gaming console.
Ah... so you think that Sony thinks that the PS2 DVD player is perfectly sufficient? Then why do they have straight DVD players that go for as much as a PS2 - surely they can't be better units, more appropriate for DVD playback, since the PS2 is the be-all end-all?
I was talking about a kind of digital convergence, and you're talking about a different kind. You seem to think that it's not convergent if it's not a single system doing everything digital; not so. When every unit can share data with every other unit digitally, that is digital convergence. It costs a lot more to get a PC that can come close to that - digital sound sent to the stereo, S-Video (not digital, but the best you can expect to get) sent to the display - than it costs to get a DVD player that can do it better. The only possible advantage is being able to play DVDs remotely, and I don't think software decoding is there yet in Linux. Sending mp3 digitally to the stereo is, IMO, a wash anyways - we're talking about sending a noticably lossy audio stream digitally to preserve its pristine quality. Silly.
As for upgradability (i.e., being able to play Ogg and mp3 from the same component) - well, look at what I said. Get a computer to do the task of handling compressed audio, so that you can simply add software to handle new kinds of files. Ditto with having a PC handle video capture and playback, instead of a TiVo.
Digital convergence, as you represent it, isn't any different than stereo convergence - getting a single shelf system to handle tapes, CDs, FM radio. They don't do poorly, and they make it easier for someone who doesn't want to mess with wiring listen to a wide variety of music, but they're not top
dogs as far as quality is concerned.
I am interested in a different kind of convergence - convergence of all data to the user. I want to be able to play my CDs on my stereo, I want to be able to listen to my CDs at my computer (on a different floor, in a different part of the house), I want to be able to listen to my CDs at work, and I want to be able to listen to my CDs when I'm commuting - and I don't want to have to carry a CD book around with me. For that matter, without carrying an mp3 player around with me - I want my music to be where I am, using whatever I'm using; my PC, my stereo, my Indy at work, my pen computer. I want to be able to watch movies where ever I happen to be, as well, and for that, I'd like a PC to handle DivX - but just as I want a CD changer (and a turntable) attached to my stereo, I don't want to be restricted to playing movies in DivX (or even DVDs as decoded by a PC). I want to be able to focus on a movie, and get unpixelated video and qualiy surround-sound - or be able to 'catch' the latest Farscape episode on my pen tablet while I'm outside trimming the hedges.
Why do you want this thing to do DVD? Honestly. I'm looking into doing something very similar, and all I can say is components, components, components.
You probably don't want to have a system switch duty between mp3 and video capture, and DVD playback from a PC will be inferior to a DVD component most of the time as well (not to mention vastly inferior sound quality on a system with onboard sound). Don't use the DVD drive, get a DVD player. Consider getting a separate PC to do mp3 playback (maybe a used laptop; low heat, low noise, small footprint, and anything over 150MHz can handle mp3 without a sweat), but don't necessarily restrict yourself to mp3s on a local hard drive - NFS isn't a bottleneck when you're playing mp3s.
NFS probably is a bottleneck on video capture; stick with a local hard drive, or consider cacheing data to local disk and copying it over to a file server at your leisure (I would guess that video playback would not be restrained by NFS).
Do you really want a network cable (or two, if you follow my suggestion) running from your stereo/TV to a hub? Consider wireless. Have you already considered and/or dealt with the amount of noise a PC makes? Take a look at Quiet PC to silence your hard drive, power supply, CPU fans, and case fans.
This would result in a setup something like:
TV
stereo (preferably surround-sound capable:)
VCR
DVD player
computer audio player/recorder system (say... P200 laptop with wireless card)
computer video player/recorder system (basically the system you describe - with silenced or silent moving parts, and a wireless card)
file server, with lots of reasonably capable storage (SCSI-2 would probably do fine, if we're otherwise talking about a 10-11Mb/s network and no performance-sensitive writing like video feeds)
wireless access point
Of course, this system involves a lot of components, and the price adds up. But, you can work your way up... a fileserver is an immediate win, wireless is an immediate win, a DVD player is an immediate win, a video player/recorder is an immediate win that improves once you have wireless, an Ogg/mp3 component is an immediate win once you've got wireless (and improves with a file server).
In addition, you've got a lot of components that you can upgrade independantly, tune for their own purpose, or sell (if that dot.com you're working for goes under).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has published, through Fatbrain, Object-Oriented Programming and the Objective-C Language - it looks like it addresses Obj-C separately from Cocoa, which is a good thing (remember, everyone, gcc supports Obj-C too :).
Read the reviews first - at least the last revision I read about (no idea if that's actually the most recent revision) was a bit of a stinker, apparently. Maybe OK for hacking, maybe not...
Excellent! It's very difficult to do long posts in IE, and OmniWeb is a little slow... so replying was difficult for me :)
As far as "scaling to less common cases" is concerned: MacOS, in general, probably scales better than Windows (better support for color-blindness/poor motor skills/less exposure to computers, excellent scripting built-in, etc.). My argument is simply that Apple made an assumption in HFS[+]~18 years ago that doesn't apply very well today.
I very much enjoyed this, and if you'd like to continue any lines of inquiry off /. my e-mail address is functional.
??? Here's the test: can you change the 'favored application' for a file type without touching a single file (with extensions)? Yes. Can you do so with Creator/Type? No.
So if I were to do so, I could then double-click on any HTML file, and - regardless of how it was set up when Explorer.app was around, it will now automatically open in OmniWeb.app? Oops, no - it won't.
That's a hack and you know it - changing something 'file by file' is not global, but local (all over). The difference is in scalability and robustness. I can't answer how to change the appropriate application in Windows, because I don't use it, and - for Unix - absolutely no 'appropriate application' information is stored (except by 'desktop systems' like KDE, which aren't Unix). As for 'cleanly removing' apps - in Unix, easily. In OS/2- yes. In MacOS - no (see above - anything with a Creator code for presents an unnecessary dialogue if Explorer is gone).
No. OS/2 can operate entirely within the confines of file extensions, and still encodes immutable metadata and mutable metametadata separately. What do I mean by separately? By and large, file type is file-specific, so it is stored with the file. "Appropriate application for type" is generally file-type specific (not file-specific), not necessarily 1-1, and not necessarily at all related to the application that created the file. Windows and OS/2 (and maybe KDE or similar) all manage to support all of this, even with extensions.
Why do you need to store Creator information? What purpose does it serve? I can't show you a system that records both, because the systems with which I'm familiar rightly see no use in recording Creator. The information they record is purely functional - how do you use the file. Extensions are not, to repeat, "type and creator" rolled into one. They are type. Creator is regarded as useless, and application is recorded in a non-1-1 fashion by file type.
To make this clear, consider that you can change the association of your HTML files from Netscape to IE without changing the extension; the file might have been created in FrontPage (shudder), but that doesn't matter on iota.
It is. It still works better.
Allow me to clarify the OS/2 system: if you double click on the file, it opens in whatever application is at the head of the list of applications. If you right click on the file, it gives you a menu much like MacOS (with Ctrl-click). One of the options is to open the document in a different application. It is "immediate, intuitive usability" and "extended functionality" rolled into one.
HACK ALERT! HACK ALERT! UNSCALABLE NON-ROBUST SOLUTION PROPOSED! :-) Going through file-by-file is inappropriate, and providing the selection every time is tiresome. There is no need for the Creator code.
No. There is no reason to require three Finder windows to be open, or three spaces in the Dock taken, just to be able to open a document in three programs.
Sure, but "multiple applications for HTML files" isn't very far out there. I was exaggerating to make my point that Creator/Type is excessively limiting.
Yes, that's why it was amazing to me that PERL got it right. And while I agree that the default case should be easy (it is, Windows or MacOS), the non-default case is not that hard in Windows. Modern versions of Windows are also somewhat safe (although it required hack upon hack).
First: Windows is effectively a "hidden but changeable" system now. Second: MacOS is extremely difficult to change (you confuse "Applescriptable" with "easy," I think). Third: MacOS does not scale well to uncommon cases or large filesystems, but Windows does.
Just to be clear, as I've said before, I'm not arguing file extensions as the Right Way - just better than Creator/Type.
No. I prefer a system where immutable metadata is separated from mutable metadata. File type is immutable metadata, whereas the appropriate application for a file (or file type, really - see below) is mutable metametadata.
It would be preferable to not being able to easily change what application is used by default. But even more preferable would be to have a list of appropriate applications for file types - no hijacking can be done, but new applications do become easily available for old files (something not true with Creator/Type).
Excuse me, how do I tell MacOS that Explorer.app, Omniweb.app and TextEdit.app are all appropriate applications for all HTML files? How do I tell MacOS that, universally, Explorer.app is no longer appropriate for any HTML file, except this one over here?
OS/2. OS/2 also supported storing this information in a metadata field (the file extension overrode this, so if you used metadata fields you didn't use extensions), and let you assign multiple applications (with one default, the rest available through a context menu) to each type (as well as set exceptions for an individual file).
Creator/Type violates the principle that immutable metadata and mutable metametadata be stored separately (the metametadata is "the kind of application(s) appropriate for this metadata type"); that multiple applications should be able to operate on the same file easily; that any sort of data intended to be immutable be sufficiently robust that the user doesn't need to try to change it.
But it fails to support the entire range of what users want to do. Amazingly, PERL tries to follow a principle relevant to this: "easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."
Changing file extension is easier than Creator/Type because Apple makes it easier (why is it hard in OS 9? No idea). IE keeps dying on me for long responses, (stupid Preview Release of 5.1, I have to get 10.1 installed) so let me just say that the biggest problem is the Creator part. It expects a single, unchanging, application to always open that file, and that is an incorrect expectation that makes it harder to use than (the very horrible) file extension.
Thanks for being so condescending. Let me be clear: I don't like file extensions. It's just that Creator/Type is worse. I'm not a "win-whore," I'm typing this in OS X right now.
I'll respond once regarding JPEG - I was mistaken. Since Show Info doesn't show actual codes, but related strings, I misinterpreted it. As someone else pointed out, of course, this does apply to a few formats like mp3s, where it has bitten me before (that was on a different system a few years ago, and I haven't been able to find the same utility I used for creator/type manipulation since).
My broader point was that castigating file extensions, when they are more usable than the broken system they are replacing, is silly.
I quite agree that MIME types are probably the best way to go - BeOS had them, and OS/2 used them sometimes (to a lesser extent - OS/2's metadata type system predates MIME, but OS/2's flexibility in the matter allowed users to switch to MIME).
His rants on metadata are way off. Although file extensions for typing violate the basic rule of metadata, they still work better than Type/Creator codes.
I am sick and tired of hearing the rants about the inherently wrong nature of file extensions, versus the 'good enough' nature of Creator/Types. No. Both violate important principles, but file extensions can work well, and Creator/Type can not. Creator/Type advocates emphasize one virtue (the metadata nature of the typing system) and ignore the gross failures of Creator/Type to actually support what users need to do.
LISA is the conference for sysadmins. I went last year, and I was very impressed with the quality of the tutorials, and some of the papers were very interesting as well (and, if nothing else, most of the papers center around how different people solved different problems, so you are exposed to a wide variety of techniques). USENIX Technical Conference is an excellent Unix-oriented programming conference, as well.
You're either letting your privacy be violated to get something free (and let's face it, advertisers won't pay nearly enough to cover a $20/person-month subscription without mucho private info), or you're protecting your privacy by giving them just money.
No, subscriptions are the Right Way to Do It. It costs you money, but we're concerned about free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. Complain about the closed nature of the games first, then we'll talk about the cost (at which point I'll bring up the costs of paying all those developers, admins, and maintaining those servers - and subscriptions will still be the Right Way to Do It).
I've seen Mini-PCI cards that do this (Gateway and IBM stick in some of their laptops). I'm not certain that they don't require an external antenna, but they might work in a random laptop with a Mini-PCI slot, and no other preparation. The whole idea of Mini-PCI was to make the laptops a little more modular, and let laptop makers get new features to market quicker, after all.
OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, mkLinux, MacOS, MacOS X.
Plenty of options, even for snobs ;-)
Before now, I disagreed. I thought, "if we can just keep everyone unarmed in just this tiny span of space-time, it won't be a grand threat to liberty and it will work." Well, apparently it doesn't work, so the same maxim applies: if you strip weapons from law-abiding citizens, then only non-law-abiding citizens will have weapons. Terrorists pretty clearly want very good odds once they get onto the plane - guns against hands is awesome, but knives against hands is good enough - so, let everyone have pistols (yes, including the terrorists, unless you know they're terrorists in which case they shouldn't get on in the first place). The odds are a lot worse for terrorists in a "guns versus guns" scenario - that's why these folks aren't soldiers, they know the odds suck.
There are problems associated with such a plan, but they don't include "well-timed tactical strikes against multiple important locations, killing tens of thousands of people."
Errr... I happen to work in Wean Hall. Classes were cancelled at CMU yesterday, and managers in SCS were encouraged to let their groups go (and across campus, in other schools, likewise AFAIK). However, Wean was not 'evacuated' - I was there for several hours, and there were a few other people there as well. Slashdot, please update this claim - Wean was not evacuated.
First, yes it was on MacSlash. A while ago. Second, it's on Apple's website ("[a]n upgrade CD will be available..." - no mention of a download). It's not a rumor, it's a fact (at least unless Apple changes its mind).
I never heard it was going to be a free download, all I heard was "why isn't it a free download?"
There are quite a few issues bound up in GUI/CLI development wars, and here's my take on a few of them:
My general solution? I use whatever editor is accessible in xterms (or Terminal.app windows) for most of my programming, I use emacs, joe or Project Builder for compiling and debugging, and I use Interface Builder for building the GUI. I can do everything but building the GUI anywhere I find myself, at any computer (and I hop around quite a bit so it's a definite gain over restricting myself to a GUI IDE), and I am able to leverage my knowledge of text editors (held over from writing a lot of non-code documents) in writing code.
You could always look into the solution I found - a Visorphone. Not right for everyone, especially people who do road trips or otherwise get out of range for the digital service the VP supports, but it sure beats doing any work getting phone numbers between your cell phone and your PDA.
Just to be clear, you should use a password with RSA keys (otherwise, for instance, root on the system that has your RSA key can impersonate you on the remote system). However, as I understand it, the password used is used to decrypt the RSA key prior to use, and then the decrypted RSA key is used. So yes, it should protect against this (very theoretical) attack.
But then, you were already using RSA keys so that knowing your password on the remote system wasn't sufficient, right?
As an aside, I've found that those cute little credit-card CD-ROMs are excellent for storing your RSA key, and they're usable with just about everything but TiBooks and iMacs - and with the extra space, you can keep known-good SSH binaries for Windows, Mac, and any Unix systems you commonly use on there as well.
No, the iBook's processor really isn't bad at all. Even with the high-end PowerBook eight months ago, for a grand less? Not bad. OS X runs beautifully on mine (typing this from my iBook in OS X right now), although it's not the best system for the pretty demos you give friends. It has the top bang/buck ratio around (my only problem with it is the 'pretty' touchpad, which my fingers frequently tap while I'm typing - I had to turn off clicking with the touchpad because all kinds of crazy things were happening). It also has, IMO, a better keyboard than the TiBook, which command line fans (and /. posters) should keep in mind.
On the other hand, there's hardly a bad word to be said for IBM laptops. I didn't buy one, but I didn't want to spend that much. The ThinkLight is very nice - I wish my iBook had one - and the hardware is top-notch, and widely supported (OS/2, Linux, any BSD, and BeOS is probably fine too). The T series is a phenomenal high-end laptop. And all of IBM's laptops have a fine keyboard.
The X series from IBM is, IMO, the top-of-the-line ultralight - it's as thin as the TiBook without the media slice (which is a reasonable comparison), but can include the media slice when you need it. It also weighs a couple of pounds less, which is what is really important in an ultra-light.
For cheap, get the iBook; for expensive, get the T22 (unless you wanna do a lot of Firewire, in which case a PCMCIA Firewire adapter might not cut it - get the TiBook); for ultralight, get the X21.
Ah... so you think that Sony thinks that the PS2 DVD player is perfectly sufficient? Then why do they have straight DVD players that go for as much as a PS2 - surely they can't be better units, more appropriate for DVD playback, since the PS2 is the be-all end-all?
I was talking about a kind of digital convergence, and you're talking about a different kind. You seem to think that it's not convergent if it's not a single system doing everything digital; not so. When every unit can share data with every other unit digitally, that is digital convergence. It costs a lot more to get a PC that can come close to that - digital sound sent to the stereo, S-Video (not digital, but the best you can expect to get) sent to the display - than it costs to get a DVD player that can do it better. The only possible advantage is being able to play DVDs remotely, and I don't think software decoding is there yet in Linux. Sending mp3 digitally to the stereo is, IMO, a wash anyways - we're talking about sending a noticably lossy audio stream digitally to preserve its pristine quality. Silly.
As for upgradability (i.e., being able to play Ogg and mp3 from the same component) - well, look at what I said. Get a computer to do the task of handling compressed audio, so that you can simply add software to handle new kinds of files. Ditto with having a PC handle video capture and playback, instead of a TiVo.
Digital convergence, as you represent it, isn't any different than stereo convergence - getting a single shelf system to handle tapes, CDs, FM radio. They don't do poorly, and they make it easier for someone who doesn't want to mess with wiring listen to a wide variety of music, but they're not top dogs as far as quality is concerned.
I am interested in a different kind of convergence - convergence of all data to the user. I want to be able to play my CDs on my stereo, I want to be able to listen to my CDs at my computer (on a different floor, in a different part of the house), I want to be able to listen to my CDs at work, and I want to be able to listen to my CDs when I'm commuting - and I don't want to have to carry a CD book around with me. For that matter, without carrying an mp3 player around with me - I want my music to be where I am, using whatever I'm using; my PC, my stereo, my Indy at work, my pen computer. I want to be able to watch movies where ever I happen to be, as well, and for that, I'd like a PC to handle DivX - but just as I want a CD changer (and a turntable) attached to my stereo, I don't want to be restricted to playing movies in DivX (or even DVDs as decoded by a PC). I want to be able to focus on a movie, and get unpixelated video and qualiy surround-sound - or be able to 'catch' the latest Farscape episode on my pen tablet while I'm outside trimming the hedges.
Why do you want this thing to do DVD? Honestly. I'm looking into doing something very similar, and all I can say is components, components, components.
You probably don't want to have a system switch duty between mp3 and video capture, and DVD playback from a PC will be inferior to a DVD component most of the time as well (not to mention vastly inferior sound quality on a system with onboard sound). Don't use the DVD drive, get a DVD player. Consider getting a separate PC to do mp3 playback (maybe a used laptop; low heat, low noise, small footprint, and anything over 150MHz can handle mp3 without a sweat), but don't necessarily restrict yourself to mp3s on a local hard drive - NFS isn't a bottleneck when you're playing mp3s.
NFS probably is a bottleneck on video capture; stick with a local hard drive, or consider cacheing data to local disk and copying it over to a file server at your leisure (I would guess that video playback would not be restrained by NFS).
Do you really want a network cable (or two, if you follow my suggestion) running from your stereo/TV to a hub? Consider wireless. Have you already considered and/or dealt with the amount of noise a PC makes? Take a look at Quiet PC to silence your hard drive, power supply, CPU fans, and case fans.
This would result in a setup something like:
- TV
- stereo (preferably surround-sound capable
:)
- VCR
- DVD player
- computer audio player/recorder system (say... P200 laptop with wireless card)
- computer video player/recorder system (basically the system you describe - with silenced or silent moving parts, and a wireless card)
- file server, with lots of reasonably capable storage (SCSI-2 would probably do fine, if we're otherwise talking about a 10-11Mb/s network and no performance-sensitive writing like video feeds)
- wireless access point
Of course, this system involves a lot of components, and the price adds up. But, you can work your way up... a fileserver is an immediate win, wireless is an immediate win, a DVD player is an immediate win, a video player/recorder is an immediate win that improves once you have wireless, an Ogg/mp3 component is an immediate win once you've got wireless (and improves with a file server).In addition, you've got a lot of components that you can upgrade independantly, tune for their own purpose, or sell (if that dot.com you're working for goes under).
Actually, Happy Hacking Keyboard Lite 2 (now that's a product name!) has 2 downstream USB ports, too.
That's a homogeneous network :)
Hey, Simon's Rock. Cool place :-)