No, this is the next logical step if you assume that Apple's goal is to completely lock down the computer and prevent you from using it in any way they don't approve of. Which is, frankly, a ridiculous and paranoid perspective.
Unless you also assume that Google's going to demand that all computers have 3G wireless in order to use Google Apps, or Microsoft is going to cut copy & paste out of their desktop OS, as well - do you fear that that'll happen too?
Different devices have different restrictions. Get used to it, Apple have said specifically that they have no intention of locking down the Mac like the iPhone.
how long until Mac OS users find themselves in that same "walled garden"?
That is correct for now. Who knows how much more the OS will get locked down. Also, look at the iPhone. How popular are the apps that aren't available in the app store?
We could take a hint from Apple themselves, who have said that it's "one" way of getting software on the Mac. And who have also specifically said that they don't intend to lock down the Mac in the way you seem to fear they will.
As for the iPhone, you and I both know that the only officially sanctioned way of getting software onto the device is, and has always been, the App Store or a web app. So why would you ever think that any app 'not available in the app store' should or would be popular for the iPhone?
Oh, so it was just a typo? You and I both know that's b.s. I just find the use of the word "magical" to be kind of funny, especially when used to describe a Linux way of doing something, in a thread about Apple. If Steve Jobs had described the App Store as "magical," we'd never hear the end of it. Do you really want to start calling apt-get "magical"?
Also, typing "sudo apt-get install flash-player" is a little bit different from going to a web site and downloading it. And a lot more saving time.
I'd submit that the ONLY difference is that you're saving some time because your tool will go out, download and install the package, and keep it up to date. Much like the Mac OS X App Store will do soon enough.
For fuck's sake, what do you think is happening when you type "sudo apt-get install flash-player"?
Downloading an rpm or a deb package from a repository is - wait for it - "downloading an installer" from a "website". Your tools automate the installation process, but if you're typing "apt-get install" to install a package, it's not installed on your system already , and you're downloading it from a third party.
Unusually easy to download and install, perhaps. But you are doing the same thing as someone downloading a.dmg and double-clicking a.mpkg file in that image - downloading the installation file, running the installer.
1) Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle;
2) Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications? This is the Mac OS App Store we're talking about, after all.
3) Nothing precludes you from installing java, flash, and your own app via means other than the app store. If you want to work outside the guidelines, then you lose a distribution channel, and that is all.
So ubuntu's commitment to openness is what allows them to sacrifice user convenience without criticism?
Apple's clearly stated that their belief is in open standards for the web, shouldn't you be applauding them "sacrificing user convenience" for the sake of open ideals as well? One need not be completely open source to believe in the merits of open and standards-based interfaces.
No, when Ubuntu does it, it's a victory for openness and user choice.
Sort of like when android gets completely locked down by a carrier, you end up "rooting" the device to install custom software and enjoy the benefits of your completely free and open software ecosystem, but when apple does it, you have to throw off the chains of tyranny by jailbreaking your locked down piece of crap that nobody would ever want to buy anyway, if it weren't for the power of apple's marketing team and the weak-mindedness of sheeple.
So I guess this is pure win for choice and openness, then! After all, they've adopted the same stance as Linux, and offered the user a choice of whether or not to install a horrible proprietary tool that really is a piece of garbage.
I predict that open source advocates will cheer loudly for this development!
Interesting how your post focuses on the things you like, rather than a list of "everything I don't like," huh? You just made gp's point for him - use what makes you productive and happy - best tool for the job, based on your own preferences, and stop spending time whining about all the stuff you don't like.
Let's lowball the estimate, and say that the engineer's cost to the organization (desk space, salary, benefits, hardware, networking costs, phone, electricity, everything else - TCO, in other words) is in the order of ~150k per year. You and I both know that's low (HR estimates at my company place the value of 1 engineer for a year at about 250k), but let's assume it's much lower.
Figure you get about 2000 hours per year of work out of that engineer (40 hrs / week, 50 weeks a year) - that means the company is paying $75 per hour the developer works.
Now let's say that that setup is $3000 more expensive than an equivalent PC - the equivalent of 40 extra hours worth of work (75/hr * 40 hrs = $3000).
So how do we determine the point at which the company would break even on this investment? Most hardware is depreciated over 3 years. So... they'd have to get the equivalent of 40 hours extra of work out of the developer over 3 years, or 13.33... hours per year of extra productivity out of the more expensive system, to break even - roughly speaking, a ~0.7% efficiency gain, assuming 2000 hours worked each year - in other words, do 2013.33... hours of work in the time it would have taken previously to do 2000 hours of work.
Do you think that a developer being given a Unix desktop environment that he prefers, and the Unix environment which he's familiar with, would be able to squeeze ~4 minutes worth of extra productivity out of each work day? Shit, I spend that long just booting my system up & signing in while all the virus scans and security settings apply in the morning. I regularly spend that much time waiting for files to transfer around to a UNIX system so I can work on the files on the remote system, because my laptop runs windows.
Obviously, there's other costs to the organization as well, for supporting these additional desktops... but let's be honest here - you can easily make a strong case that spending a little bit more money on a better quality tool is an *investment* in increased productivity & increased savings over the life of the tool. You can't look at sticker price in a vacuum, and say "Mac > Windows PC, therefore robbery."
It can be. It really all depends on what else they decide not to take your hard-earned money for donating to.
Yeah, "it can be" - except it ISN'T. If the laws were completely different, murder *could* be legal, too. But it's not, because we don't live in alternate-reality-bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, and the ASPCA and the ACLU and a host of other non-secular charities aren't eligible for tax-deductible status, but religious organizations are.
Publication 78 from the IRS is pretty clear on what criteria qualify donations as tax-deductible, and there is even a search utility so you can make sure your organization of choice is a tax-deductible one.
The list is FAR longer and FAR more comprehensive than "churches", and in fact it absolutely does include the ASPCA, the ACLU, and battered women's shelters of any kind (since one of the qualifying organizations is "A community chest, corporation, trust, fund, or foundation, organized or created in the United States or its possessions, or under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia or any possession of the United States, and organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Hard to argue that battered womens' shelter wouldn't qualify as being "operated exclusively for charitable" purposes - I don't think there's a womens' shelter out there that would attempt to monetize their clientele, and if they did, I'd submit that it would be absolutely monstrous and inhuman to grant them any sort of 'favored' status under tax law.
So yeah, if the government allowed you a deduction only for "charity to religious organizations," then you'd have a point. Since the deduction is allowed for "charity" - full stop, the point is ridiculous.
The distinction between "donate money and we'll take less tax dollars" and "we'll take your tax dollars and donate money" is fairly small.
Only semantically. There is worlds of difference in the practice & principles implied by those two statements. One describes government encouraging voluntary charity by private individuals, which implies the free exercise of conscience by citizens. The other describes forced 'charity' by the government, put in place by a group of people who will use their fellow citizens to support goals and organizations they might not agree with or value at all. I'd say that the distinction is pretty clear, and hugely important.
Wait... so the government saying "You gave some of YOUR HARD-EARNED money away to a group that matches your principles and whose mission you support, so we will take less of your money away in taxes" is somehow... government-sponsorship for religion?
You realize that the tax money the government would collect is NOT 'their' money to begin with, right?
Of course Bible.com is a bad business idea to begin with.
Only if you short-sightedly presume that it's only business purpose would be "selling bibles" or "publishing the bible on the web."
There are numerous business ideas which could use 'bible.com' as a domain name - not all of them would be wildly profitable, but I'm sure you could make a go of: -- Selling religious texts, music, supplies to churches, church groups, and private parties - Amazon.com with a "christian mission" -- Developing some sort of christian 'facebook' type of service, which advertises ONLY christian / secular products (music, books, bibles, movies,...) and connects those businesses with a "community of believers" who are probably more likely to purchase those products. (What do you think the click-through rate for "buy Christian Music today!" on Facebook would be, versus a click-through rate on a site whose focus is Christians? Think they might be able to get good ad prices?)
There's two ideas which, given the number of christians, you could probably at least make a living at it, even if it wasn't a wildly successful billion dollar enterprise.
No, directors have a legal obligation to put the company's interests ahead of their own, and a legal obligation to provide 'good faith' governance in accordance with the corporation's charter.
There is no legal obligation to 'maximize profit' for your shareholders unless the charter specifically says there is, and even then it needs to be balanced against numerous other goals. In addition, you cannot say "maximize profits" without a time context for doing so: if you maximize profits this quarter by hiring illegal immigrants to staff your factory, firing quality assurance and customer service reps, and selling off company fixtures. And then the firm will go out of business next quarter because it was managed poorly and unsustainably.
Thus the charter defines the goals, the board of directors and management sets strategy to achieve those goals, and employees implement those strategies. Nowhere in there is a "requirement" to "maximize profit" in any given time frame, or even at all.
And when the company you just forced into bankruptcy leaves a bunch of creditors (you included, and probably numerous other companies you've invested in separately) with pennies on the dollar, you don't think this will be a concern?
Recovering your investment is rarely as simple or black and white as you seem to want it to be - it's often simpler and less disruptive to just sell your shares and take the deduction from the loss to offset some of your capital gains and reduce your tax bill.
As he wrote it, he's probably quite correct - I think it's probably quite likely that no corporate charter has listed its sole business goal as "making truckloads of cash."
As a company, If the company isn't returning as much profit as possible THAT QUARTER, you aren't fulfilling the obligations to the shareholder.
Not true, at least not as stated. There's no obligation to provide "maximum profit" in a specific quarter, or in every quarter.
Corporations can, and often do, take a longer view of profitability, and focus on making wise investments (expenditures!) today that will enhance their profitability later through increased capacity, a better market position, acquisition of a key strategic component, etc.
Corporations that are solely concerned with the current quarter are foolishly shortsighted - so much so that I think you could probably make a good case for that sort of governance being a breach of fiduciary obligations to shareholders.
You tell me - Is the goal a fair solution, or a solution in which every whim you decide is 'for the public good' can be justified, and the money appropriated from someone else?
If it's a truly fair solution, the person paying the bulk of the bills *should* have the bulk of the decision-making power, shouldn't they? I'd say the fact that we have a number of quite expensive entitlement programs that provide relatively little benefit to that top 10% of people would suggest that they are disproportionately being told to "just shut up and sign the check, we'll decide what to do with it."
Considering I have to build a product before I can sell it, and that factory time, parts, research, and development are not free operations... where do you expect that the staffing, r&d, production, and other costs of doing business will come from *before* the product is finished and fit for sale?
Does that money just magically appear in the coffers of a business?
Seriously, if you don't understand the purpose of the stock market and the role of investment in business ventures, then you have no business having an opinion on this issue.
So you're saying that, by building a system in which they pay 90% of the funds, and have 90% of the say, you don't like how they've set up the system because it doesn't benefit the "little man" enough?
I thought we were trying to arrive at a 'fair' solution, not just one in which one group benefits at the other's expense?
Slashdot Mirror
The package is not a preinstalled part of the OS, then?
Thanks, that's really the only issue here.
All the rest is semantics and "my tool is better than your tool" dick-measuring.
No, this is the next logical step if you assume that Apple's goal is to completely lock down the computer and prevent you from using it in any way they don't approve of. Which is, frankly, a ridiculous and paranoid perspective.
Unless you also assume that Google's going to demand that all computers have 3G wireless in order to use Google Apps, or Microsoft is going to cut copy & paste out of their desktop OS, as well - do you fear that that'll happen too?
Different devices have different restrictions. Get used to it, Apple have said specifically that they have no intention of locking down the Mac like the iPhone.
The making shit up was specifically directed at:
We could take a hint from Apple themselves, who have said that it's "one" way of getting software on the Mac. And who have also specifically said that they don't intend to lock down the Mac in the way you seem to fear they will.
As for the iPhone, you and I both know that the only officially sanctioned way of getting software onto the device is, and has always been, the App Store or a web app. So why would you ever think that any app 'not available in the app store' should or would be popular for the iPhone?
Oh, so it was just a typo? You and I both know that's b.s. I just find the use of the word "magical" to be kind of funny, especially when used to describe a Linux way of doing something, in a thread about Apple. If Steve Jobs had described the App Store as "magical," we'd never hear the end of it. Do you really want to start calling apt-get "magical"?
I'd submit that the ONLY difference is that you're saving some time because your tool will go out, download and install the package, and keep it up to date. Much like the Mac OS X App Store will do soon enough.
For fuck's sake, what do you think is happening when you type "sudo apt-get install flash-player"?
Downloading an rpm or a deb package from a repository is - wait for it - "downloading an installer" from a "website". Your tools automate the installation process, but if you're typing "apt-get install" to install a package, it's not installed on your system already , and you're downloading it from a third party.
Unusually easy to download and install, perhaps. But you are doing the same thing as someone downloading a .dmg and double-clicking a .mpkg file in that image - downloading the installation file, running the installer.
Yes, ive seen the guidelines. Three things:
1) Nothing says you can't include your own interpreters in your app bundle;
2) Does anybody actually use the flash browser plugin to build desktop applications? This is the Mac OS App Store we're talking about, after all.
3) Nothing precludes you from installing java, flash, and your own app via means other than the app store. If you want to work outside the guidelines, then you lose a distribution channel, and that is all.
So ubuntu's commitment to openness is what allows them to sacrifice user convenience without criticism?
Apple's clearly stated that their belief is in open standards for the web, shouldn't you be applauding them "sacrificing user convenience" for the sake of open ideals as well? One need not be completely open source to believe in the merits of open and standards-based interfaces.
No, when Ubuntu does it, it's a victory for openness and user choice.
Sort of like when android gets completely locked down by a carrier, you end up "rooting" the device to install custom software and enjoy the benefits of your completely free and open software ecosystem, but when apple does it, you have to throw off the chains of tyranny by jailbreaking your locked down piece of crap that nobody would ever want to buy anyway, if it weren't for the power of apple's marketing team and the weak-mindedness of sheeple.
Please explain how this is not "downloading the latest package yourself and installing it yourself?"
And is downloading an installer from a web site really considered "magical" by Linux users?
I'm sorry, this thread is for apple bashing. Legitimate technical strategies have no place here.
Maybe you missed the part where this was about Mac os x, and not ios?
Care to identify a source for this rumor, or are you just making shit up as you go?
So I guess this is pure win for choice and openness, then! After all, they've adopted the same stance as Linux, and offered the user a choice of whether or not to install a horrible proprietary tool that really is a piece of garbage.
I predict that open source advocates will cheer loudly for this development!
Interesting how your post focuses on the things you like, rather than a list of "everything I don't like," huh? You just made gp's point for him - use what makes you productive and happy - best tool for the job, based on your own preferences, and stop spending time whining about all the stuff you don't like.
Let's lowball the estimate, and say that the engineer's cost to the organization (desk space, salary, benefits, hardware, networking costs, phone, electricity, everything else - TCO, in other words) is in the order of ~150k per year. You and I both know that's low (HR estimates at my company place the value of 1 engineer for a year at about 250k), but let's assume it's much lower.
Figure you get about 2000 hours per year of work out of that engineer (40 hrs / week, 50 weeks a year) - that means the company is paying $75 per hour the developer works.
Now let's say that that setup is $3000 more expensive than an equivalent PC - the equivalent of 40 extra hours worth of work (75/hr * 40 hrs = $3000).
So how do we determine the point at which the company would break even on this investment? Most hardware is depreciated over 3 years. So... they'd have to get the equivalent of 40 hours extra of work out of the developer over 3 years, or 13.33... hours per year of extra productivity out of the more expensive system, to break even - roughly speaking, a ~0.7% efficiency gain, assuming 2000 hours worked each year - in other words, do 2013.33... hours of work in the time it would have taken previously to do 2000 hours of work.
Do you think that a developer being given a Unix desktop environment that he prefers, and the Unix environment which he's familiar with, would be able to squeeze ~4 minutes worth of extra productivity out of each work day? Shit, I spend that long just booting my system up & signing in while all the virus scans and security settings apply in the morning. I regularly spend that much time waiting for files to transfer around to a UNIX system so I can work on the files on the remote system, because my laptop runs windows.
Obviously, there's other costs to the organization as well, for supporting these additional desktops... but let's be honest here - you can easily make a strong case that spending a little bit more money on a better quality tool is an *investment* in increased productivity & increased savings over the life of the tool. You can't look at sticker price in a vacuum, and say "Mac > Windows PC, therefore robbery."
Yeah, "it can be" - except it ISN'T. If the laws were completely different, murder *could* be legal, too. But it's not, because we don't live in alternate-reality-bizarro-world where up is down, left is right, and the ASPCA and the ACLU and a host of other non-secular charities aren't eligible for tax-deductible status, but religious organizations are.
Publication 78 from the IRS is pretty clear on what criteria qualify donations as tax-deductible, and there is even a search utility so you can make sure your organization of choice is a tax-deductible one.
The list is FAR longer and FAR more comprehensive than "churches", and in fact it absolutely does include the ASPCA, the ACLU, and battered women's shelters of any kind (since one of the qualifying organizations is "A community chest, corporation, trust, fund, or foundation, organized or created in the United States or its possessions, or under the laws of the United States, any state, the District of Columbia or any possession of the United States, and organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, scientific, or literary purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." Hard to argue that battered womens' shelter wouldn't qualify as being "operated exclusively for charitable" purposes - I don't think there's a womens' shelter out there that would attempt to monetize their clientele, and if they did, I'd submit that it would be absolutely monstrous and inhuman to grant them any sort of 'favored' status under tax law.
So yeah, if the government allowed you a deduction only for "charity to religious organizations," then you'd have a point. Since the deduction is allowed for "charity" - full stop, the point is ridiculous.
Only semantically. There is worlds of difference in the practice & principles implied by those two statements. One describes government encouraging voluntary charity by private individuals, which implies the free exercise of conscience by citizens. The other describes forced 'charity' by the government, put in place by a group of people who will use their fellow citizens to support goals and organizations they might not agree with or value at all. I'd say that the distinction is pretty clear, and hugely important.
Wait... so the government saying "You gave some of YOUR HARD-EARNED money away to a group that matches your principles and whose mission you support, so we will take less of your money away in taxes" is somehow... government-sponsorship for religion?
You realize that the tax money the government would collect is NOT 'their' money to begin with, right?
Only if you short-sightedly presume that it's only business purpose would be "selling bibles" or "publishing the bible on the web."
There are numerous business ideas which could use 'bible.com' as a domain name - not all of them would be wildly profitable, but I'm sure you could make a go of: ...) and connects those businesses with a "community of believers" who are probably more likely to purchase those products. (What do you think the click-through rate for "buy Christian Music today!" on Facebook would be, versus a click-through rate on a site whose focus is Christians? Think they might be able to get good ad prices?)
-- Selling religious texts, music, supplies to churches, church groups, and private parties - Amazon.com with a "christian mission"
-- Developing some sort of christian 'facebook' type of service, which advertises ONLY christian / secular products (music, books, bibles, movies,
There's two ideas which, given the number of christians, you could probably at least make a living at it, even if it wasn't a wildly successful billion dollar enterprise.
No, directors have a legal obligation to put the company's interests ahead of their own, and a legal obligation to provide 'good faith' governance in accordance with the corporation's charter.
There is no legal obligation to 'maximize profit' for your shareholders unless the charter specifically says there is, and even then it needs to be balanced against numerous other goals. In addition, you cannot say "maximize profits" without a time context for doing so: if you maximize profits this quarter by hiring illegal immigrants to staff your factory, firing quality assurance and customer service reps, and selling off company fixtures. And then the firm will go out of business next quarter because it was managed poorly and unsustainably.
Thus the charter defines the goals, the board of directors and management sets strategy to achieve those goals, and employees implement those strategies. Nowhere in there is a "requirement" to "maximize profit" in any given time frame, or even at all.
And when the company you just forced into bankruptcy leaves a bunch of creditors (you included, and probably numerous other companies you've invested in separately) with pennies on the dollar, you don't think this will be a concern?
Recovering your investment is rarely as simple or black and white as you seem to want it to be - it's often simpler and less disruptive to just sell your shares and take the deduction from the loss to offset some of your capital gains and reduce your tax bill.
As he wrote it, he's probably quite correct - I think it's probably quite likely that no corporate charter has listed its sole business goal as "making truckloads of cash."
Not true, at least not as stated. There's no obligation to provide "maximum profit" in a specific quarter, or in every quarter.
Corporations can, and often do, take a longer view of profitability, and focus on making wise investments (expenditures!) today that will enhance their profitability later through increased capacity, a better market position, acquisition of a key strategic component, etc.
Corporations that are solely concerned with the current quarter are foolishly shortsighted - so much so that I think you could probably make a good case for that sort of governance being a breach of fiduciary obligations to shareholders.
You tell me - Is the goal a fair solution, or a solution in which every whim you decide is 'for the public good' can be justified, and the money appropriated from someone else?
If it's a truly fair solution, the person paying the bulk of the bills *should* have the bulk of the decision-making power, shouldn't they? I'd say the fact that we have a number of quite expensive entitlement programs that provide relatively little benefit to that top 10% of people would suggest that they are disproportionately being told to "just shut up and sign the check, we'll decide what to do with it."
Considering I have to build a product before I can sell it, and that factory time, parts, research, and development are not free operations... where do you expect that the staffing, r&d, production, and other costs of doing business will come from *before* the product is finished and fit for sale?
Does that money just magically appear in the coffers of a business?
Seriously, if you don't understand the purpose of the stock market and the role of investment in business ventures, then you have no business having an opinion on this issue.
So you're saying that, by building a system in which they pay 90% of the funds, and have 90% of the say, you don't like how they've set up the system because it doesn't benefit the "little man" enough?
I thought we were trying to arrive at a 'fair' solution, not just one in which one group benefits at the other's expense?