Right. I seem to recall, as a child, having a 4% interest rate on my savings account. Maybe that was a CD, I don't fully recall at this point, but what I do know is that those rates are a thing of the past. Gone are the days of putting $500 (what I had saved by age 9) into a CD and having $520 to roll over a year later. Now? The best I can find leaves me rolling over a balance of $1042.90 after 3 years on a $1000 minimum deposit. That's $507.50 on $500 after the first year, a 62.5% reduction in earning potential.
But no, millenials have all the same opportunities today as their parents did 30 years ago, what with interest rates not pacing inflation so things we save for end up costing more than if we buy them today. How? Because the $40,000 car we start saving for today at 1.41% APY is gonna be a $24,000 car in 5 years (assuming the 1.7% inflation rate doesn't increase, which has been the trend) by the time we've saved up the $44,000. We'll be a few hundred short by the time we save up the additional $4,000 but, after 7 years, we can finally buy our $45,000 car. Contrast that with the $13,000 price tag our parents had on the same class of car, coupled with interest rates nearer to 4% and inflation nearer to 3.8% and, well, you can already see the interest rates outpaced inflation 31 years ago (I would have said 30 years, but inflation was only 1.1% in 1986 and I'm trying to be fair to my parents), and that's before you consider that, without a degree, the average salary is the same $36,000 today as it was back then, no adjustment for inflation so that $36,000 only goes about half as far after 31 years of inflation. No, really, go look up the data and do the math, we're up 44.519% over 1985 prices.
Anyway, since our parents could stretch the same $36,000 twice as far, they could also save twice as much each year for a car that cost less than 1/3 as much meaning that, even without interest, they could save for their $13,000 car in less than 2 years, at which point they'd have saved $16,000 for a car that would then cost $14,000. Again, before interest. With interest, they'd have closer to $17,000 in the bank, so they could not only afford the car, but also all the options and maybe take their folks out to a nice dinner the night they bought it. And that in less than 1/3 of the time we millenials could do the same.
So, that's assuming no college education. What about that college degree? Well, according to the data at hand, the median wage for someone with a college degree in the 1908's (regardless of debt - take the average of those numbers) falls just shy of $72,000. Today? Just over $56,300. Remember that $72,000 today would stretch about half as far as it did back then. $56,300? That goes about 40% as far as the $72,000 of 30 years ago. That's right, college educated millenials are worth about 40% as much as their college educated parents; that's worse than those without a degree. Sure, they can save up for that car in 5 years instead of 7, but that sure as fuck ain't no 2 years, and doesn't include all the extras, or dinner for Mom and Pop.
Yeah, we have all the opportunities our parents had. For sure.
I'm just happy I was able to position myself, without a degree, to make twice what my dad did with one, so I can continue almost living the same life he did earning $50k before he had me. I also realize that I possess exceptional intelligence (top 5%) and a very strong drive for success; I can't imagine the average millenial, even college educated, even driven, having what I have today, and the numbers support that. I know a lot of people in my age group who are equally successful, no special snowflake here, but they're all of similar intelligence and drive; the other 95% aren't going to achieve what I have.
That's depressing, because I haven't achieved anything of note.
and insurance companies charging whatever the hell they want
Well, TBH, insurance was cheaper before the ACA, so that wouldn't be so bad. When I say cheaper, I mean I now pay more for barely-there coverage than I was paying for a no-deductible, no-copay plan pre-ACA and, while the best plan I can get costs nearly 4x as much as I was paying previously, I get to choose between a $2600/yr deductible or a 10% copay at that level. I can't get what I had at any price, so I can't even tell you how much more expensive it is; we'll say 5x, though, if you count the deductible simply as additional premium.
Sure, if you're poor enough that you qualify for subsidies, it's "cheaper", but the insurance companies are still charging more, even at those levels; taxpayers are simply picking up the tab.
The ACA would be great if, instead of subsidies for the lower classes, it set pricing limits on insurance and, in order to make those realistic, the procedures covered by said insurance. If that turned out to not be enough to make health care affordable (you know, actually lowering the real costs of a thing is usually a much more effective methodof making that thing affordable than simply shifting those costs to a different line item on the same invoice), we could still offer subsidies; and much smaller ones, at that.
Instead, what we got is the poor paying out of pocket*, the middle class paying full price for the coverage the poor get at a discount and still not being able to afford the deductible after the premiums, and the rich paying out of pocket as they always have, while Congress is exempt from all of it.
* Or, rather, failing to pay the $6300 deductible and $75 copay on top of whatever amount of premiums they also can't afford, effectively changing nothing as they can't afford to use the insurance they already couldn't afford to pay for. Remember, the subsidies only cover premiums, not deductible or copay amounts, and the largest subsidies only mostly cover the cheapest plans. For example, the $6300 deductible + $75 copay plan I found through Kaiser, literally the cheapest plan I could find, costs $239.14/mo, or 70 cents/mo with the largest possible subsidy in my state (if you make enough to qualify for a larger subsidy, the state already has programs that fully cover you). For reference, that is the state of California, where someone earning $20,000/yr and paying 70 cents per month for insurance won't be able to afford a single $75 copay, let alone the $6300 he must pony up before that $75 copay even applies. Of course, the same can be said in Ohio, where someone earning $20,000/yr and paying 70 cents per month for insurance may be able to afford a $75 copay, but that is rendered totally irrelevant by the $6300 deductible reducing their $17000 net income to $10700, an amount they simply won't get by on.
Llke you, I thought the ACA would be a good thing. Unlike you, I quickly realized it is not.
Even without artificial limits, there is still a physical limit to the speed and, well, billing periods are fixed as well, so there's the time limit. Again, Speed x Time = Limit.
At least, that's the argument Verizon customers throw in my face to explain how their 4GB/mo limit on a $90/mo plan (at least, the last time i had the argument) is better than my "unlimited" (on which I use 30+GB/mo regularly) plan for $70.
I can tell you from experience, switching between a 15" PC laptop with a 4k screen and a 15" MacBook Pro with at 2880x1800 screen, the difference is quite noticeable. 1080p to 4k would be even more so. Of course, not everyone has 20/5 vision, so that could be your problem.
I upgraded the RAM from a mere 4GB to 16GB (the max).
Not according to Apple; all of their 2011 laptop models max out at 8GB. Of course, since the RAM isn't soldered to the board and the chipset actually supports 16GB, those of us with any sense are running that configuration.
The 2013 and newer Retina MacBook Pros should be able to support 32GB, but Apple doesn't sell them that way. With the RAM soldered, well, those machines are missing out on a fair bit of their potential.
Tack on another 4" to the screen size and another $1000 to the price and I know at least a dozen people, in addition to my wife and myself, who will be in line waiting for the Apple store to open the day it comes out.
Apple's biggest fuck up this decade was making the MacBook Pro thinner; though, making the Mac Pro a trash can is a very close second. Pro doesn't need to be beautiful, it needs to be functional, and Apple had a been maintaining a great balance between the two until 2012.
If the tests included "process X amount of data" and "download X amount of data" and were evaluating not only battery life, but also performance, they'd have to choose which one to cheat. Since (judging by 2016 MacBook Pro sales) many people don't give much if a shit about battery life, there would be incentive to sacrifice battery life to improve performance in that test; until you realize that some people do care about battery life, which removes any incentive to cheat at all.
As I said, I'm no longer interested in convincing you; I don't care if you believe me. You'll find a way, in your own head, to refute any evidence I present. You can't even remain consistent in your arguments for the duration of a single post you're stretching so far to disagree with me. See:
Baahahahaha. What world do you live in? Huddleston was relaying to you an agreement he had with Apple. Did you see the agreement? No. Did you see any emails relating to the agreement? No. At best Huddleston was relaying to you conversations he had with Apple. Then you are trying to relay those conversations to me. Please read up on what hearsay means.
So, Huddleston is not a first-party source for information about Huddleston? Anything he tells me is hearsay?
I previously said if Huddleston says it, then I'll take your word.
Yet, you'll believe me if he says it?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right about now? Of course not or you'd shut up already.
None of this is on-point. None of it. That said, I would like to point out that a great many external projects get merged into the kernel mainline for each release; many of them, FUSE for example, can either be compiled into the kernel itself, compiled as runtime-loadable modules, or left out entirely (see: make menuconfig). Those are optional, as the kernel will function just fine without them and, if you don't explicitly build the kernel to include them, they won't be included. A module that you load into the kernel at runtime is not part of the kernel; or are you saying that FUSE is part of the Darwin kernel as well, if you load the FUSE kernel module? I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, as you've explicitly stated that to not be the case. In short, you're arguing with yourself at this point; you can't have it both ways.
What? bahahahaha. That's exactly what you did above.
Eh? I'll entertain this line of reasoning, for amusement's sake.
You claim Huddleston told you something 6 years ago.
Because he did.
That's hearsay in any context.
Yes, as I stated (and you quoted):
Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
However, him saying it to me (which is what I have) was not hearsay.
Do you have a recording of this conversation? I'm betting no.
if I say no, does that mean it never happened? No, it still happened, it was still said, I know it was said, my source was first-party and, therefore, not hearsay. Again, it may be hearsay when I relay it, but it was not hearsay when it came to me.
But you again you are so sure that Huddleston's arrangement with Apple didn't change in the 6 years IF everything you said was true.
Since he stopped mentioning X11 in his profile after Apple dropped X11.app, it stands to reason that either LinkedIn is an unreliable source, or he no longer works on X11 on Apple's behalf. We know he still maintains XQuartz, that much is indisputable. If he was still involved in X11 at all on Apple's behalf, it would be mentioned in his LinkedIn profile; unless, of course, you want to say that's not a reliable source, in which case you must also be willing to disregard the portion of his profile that you referenced.
Further, if you look at every single one of his commits, they're on always on weekends or odd hours of morning or night when he would, most certainly, not be on Apple's time; that's all public data. If he were maintaining XQuartz on Apple's behalf, he'd do it on Apple's time.
You can't be sure of that.
No, of course; however, being a man of reason, I can deduce it from the evidence at hand.
That's between Apple and Huddleston. If Huddleston says it, then I'll believe it. You not so much.
So, then, ask him.
I repeat: You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
Your point about using some other packaging system is irrelevant.
My point was the differences in how the other packaging systems operate. That's completely relevant to my other point, being that how the module is distributed absolutely matters.
Wow do you even read what you write? Tuxera has an agreement with MS. Your words. MS does not have an agreement with Apple.
Yes, i do. You, on the other hand, clearly don't. They have an agreement with MS, as of 2009 which will allow them to release NTFS-3g under the GPL; the the 10 years preceding that agreement, they distributed it entirely without license. From the article you clearly didn't look at:
When asked whether there were patent issues with NTFS, Välimäki said: "Microsoft has never publically said anything about patent issues with NTFS... Our open-source NTFS driver has been available for 10 years, and our commercial driver for two."
Also from that article:
"We'll be licensing our Linux NTFS under the GPL, and we have an agreement with Microsoft. If you're a user, you don't need to worry about Microsoft. We'll deal with them directly," he added.
Given that it's GPL licensed, and with Microsoft's blessing, there is nothing stopping Apple from using it.
Were you in any negotiation talks when MS approached Apple about ntfs?
No, clearly I was not. However... actually, I'mma let you finish before I go on.
MS might have wanted way more than Apple wanted to offer. So that might have been the reason they didn't do the deal.
Given that OS X still had NTFS support when NTFS-3g was released under the GPL in 2009, Apple could have forked NTFS-3g if licensing were an issue. In other words, there was a solution free of any licensing or patent issued by the time Apple dropped NTFS support from OS X so, no, it's not a licensing issue. Period.
That is a lie [git.net]. Fuse was merged to Linux mainline kernel in 2.6.14. Please check your sources
There are a lot of external modules that get merged into the kernel. It still compiles and installs as an optional module. Remember what you insinuated a couple posts ago about whether or not I actually use Linux? Let's flip that around. I run my desktop systems with the FUSE module installed and my servers without; yes, it is a module and yes, it is optional; it's also developed outside of the kernel mainline and can be updated independently of the kernel; its repo, like many others, simply gets merged into the kernel repo at stable releases.
Yup and I had one 6 years ago, along with the lapdock. So much potential, but they insisted on forcing their own repository on what they called "Ubuntu" (despite not using Ubuntu's repo) and never actually putting any useful working software in it. Sure, there was some useful software, but none of it worked; and there was some working software, but none of it useful.
It also had a fingerprint reader long before Apple or Samsung even considered it.
All in all, it was a decent phone if you ignored the crap desktop implementation; and, since the lapdock was implemented using standard ports (mini-HDMI and micro-USB), I was able to use it for a few projects (as a plug and play component), so it wasn't a wasted purchase.
What you say conflicts with what he lists on his public profile page. If you were me, which you would believe? Someone who claims they talked to Huddleston 6 years ago or what Huddleston has posted?
Ok, well, at this point the thread has grown longer than anyone else is gonna ever read, so it's down to you trying to convince me and me trying to convince you. Here's the thing, though: I know I talked to the man, I know what he said, I unequivocally know the facts here. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
Just like every other OS, an update can break things.
Of course! But, it's exceedingly rare in a stable distro.
With Linux the quality of the OS is much better than MS and Apple but things have been broken in the past especially since Linus and the kernel developers don't deal with userspace. As for this "single, coherent, entity" I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Linux distros. Debian unstable or testing. Hello?
I did, at some point, say "sane" distro. Nobody sane would use unstable or testing in production; it's right in the name, you should expect problems.
Regardless? Again you know this, how?
Are you trying to say Apple tests their updates against all apps in the app store and holds them back if some 3rd-party app breaks? No? That's now I know; oh, and form conversations with Apple engineers, as mentioned in my previous post. In other words, straight from the fucking horse's mouth.
So you're saying Apple does things in their own OS which may break things in a 3rd party software. Again, so what?
So nothing, that wasn't my point, and you know that. If FUSE was packaged and provided by Apple, this wouldn't be an issue. That's the my primary point. Why they don't do it is irrelevant to whether to not it would solve the issue. Secondarily, my point is that FUSE from a vendor-maintained repository is provably more stable than FUSE from an external source. Again, why Apple does not package their own version of FUSE is irrelevant to that point.
If you want to argue my points and show me how they're wrong, you're welcome to it, but this whole time you've been arguing off-point.
There are plenty of reason why they don't want to adopt the project. You're confusing technical capability and desire. Two separate things. Again this is for what? To support an implementation of someone else's proprietary filesystem.
Of course, I'm sure there are, but that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my point that them doing so would solve the FUSE stability issues in the same way Linux distros doing so has done the same. In other words, it's off-point.
Again we get to the same argument: Not all distros have the same packages. Arch Linux does not for example have JFS by default. So far you seem to be basing your argument on what Ubuntu does, but Ubuntu does not represent all of Linux distros.
So, you quote me talking about other distros ("and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility"), then completely ignore it in your reply, claiming that I'm basing my argument on Ubuntu. You also quoted my mention of lack of even possible JFS support in OS X, which I was actually hoping you'd address by telling me I'm wrong and pointing out how to make it work, as I might find that useful at some point, and completely failed to address it.
[Citation needed]
For starters, what I wrote immediately above this. However, as that was said after I made the claim:
Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed. The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. I seem to recall, as a child, having a 4% interest rate on my savings account. Maybe that was a CD, I don't fully recall at this point, but what I do know is that those rates are a thing of the past. Gone are the days of putting $500 (what I had saved by age 9) into a CD and having $520 to roll over a year later. Now? The best I can find leaves me rolling over a balance of $1042.90 after 3 years on a $1000 minimum deposit. That's $507.50 on $500 after the first year, a 62.5% reduction in earning potential.
But no, millenials have all the same opportunities today as their parents did 30 years ago, what with interest rates not pacing inflation so things we save for end up costing more than if we buy them today. How? Because the $40,000 car we start saving for today at 1.41% APY is gonna be a $24,000 car in 5 years (assuming the 1.7% inflation rate doesn't increase, which has been the trend) by the time we've saved up the $44,000. We'll be a few hundred short by the time we save up the additional $4,000 but, after 7 years, we can finally buy our $45,000 car. Contrast that with the $13,000 price tag our parents had on the same class of car, coupled with interest rates nearer to 4% and inflation nearer to 3.8% and, well, you can already see the interest rates outpaced inflation 31 years ago (I would have said 30 years, but inflation was only 1.1% in 1986 and I'm trying to be fair to my parents), and that's before you consider that, without a degree, the average salary is the same $36,000 today as it was back then, no adjustment for inflation so that $36,000 only goes about half as far after 31 years of inflation. No, really, go look up the data and do the math, we're up 44.519% over 1985 prices.
Anyway, since our parents could stretch the same $36,000 twice as far, they could also save twice as much each year for a car that cost less than 1/3 as much meaning that, even without interest, they could save for their $13,000 car in less than 2 years, at which point they'd have saved $16,000 for a car that would then cost $14,000. Again, before interest. With interest, they'd have closer to $17,000 in the bank, so they could not only afford the car, but also all the options and maybe take their folks out to a nice dinner the night they bought it. And that in less than 1/3 of the time we millenials could do the same.
So, that's assuming no college education. What about that college degree? Well, according to the data at hand, the median wage for someone with a college degree in the 1908's (regardless of debt - take the average of those numbers) falls just shy of $72,000. Today? Just over $56,300. Remember that $72,000 today would stretch about half as far as it did back then. $56,300? That goes about 40% as far as the $72,000 of 30 years ago. That's right, college educated millenials are worth about 40% as much as their college educated parents; that's worse than those without a degree. Sure, they can save up for that car in 5 years instead of 7, but that sure as fuck ain't no 2 years, and doesn't include all the extras, or dinner for Mom and Pop.
Yeah, we have all the opportunities our parents had. For sure.
I'm just happy I was able to position myself, without a degree, to make twice what my dad did with one, so I can continue almost living the same life he did earning $50k before he had me. I also realize that I possess exceptional intelligence (top 5%) and a very strong drive for success; I can't imagine the average millenial, even college educated, even driven, having what I have today, and the numbers support that. I know a lot of people in my age group who are equally successful, no special snowflake here, but they're all of similar intelligence and drive; the other 95% aren't going to achieve what I have.
That's depressing, because I haven't achieved anything of note.
and insurance companies charging whatever the hell they want
Well, TBH, insurance was cheaper before the ACA, so that wouldn't be so bad. When I say cheaper, I mean I now pay more for barely-there coverage than I was paying for a no-deductible, no-copay plan pre-ACA and, while the best plan I can get costs nearly 4x as much as I was paying previously, I get to choose between a $2600/yr deductible or a 10% copay at that level. I can't get what I had at any price, so I can't even tell you how much more expensive it is; we'll say 5x, though, if you count the deductible simply as additional premium.
Sure, if you're poor enough that you qualify for subsidies, it's "cheaper", but the insurance companies are still charging more, even at those levels; taxpayers are simply picking up the tab.
The ACA would be great if, instead of subsidies for the lower classes, it set pricing limits on insurance and, in order to make those realistic, the procedures covered by said insurance. If that turned out to not be enough to make health care affordable (you know, actually lowering the real costs of a thing is usually a much more effective methodof making that thing affordable than simply shifting those costs to a different line item on the same invoice), we could still offer subsidies; and much smaller ones, at that.
Instead, what we got is the poor paying out of pocket*, the middle class paying full price for the coverage the poor get at a discount and still not being able to afford the deductible after the premiums, and the rich paying out of pocket as they always have, while Congress is exempt from all of it.
* Or, rather, failing to pay the $6300 deductible and $75 copay on top of whatever amount of premiums they also can't afford, effectively changing nothing as they can't afford to use the insurance they already couldn't afford to pay for. Remember, the subsidies only cover premiums, not deductible or copay amounts, and the largest subsidies only mostly cover the cheapest plans. For example, the $6300 deductible + $75 copay plan I found through Kaiser, literally the cheapest plan I could find, costs $239.14/mo, or 70 cents/mo with the largest possible subsidy in my state (if you make enough to qualify for a larger subsidy, the state already has programs that fully cover you). For reference, that is the state of California, where someone earning $20,000/yr and paying 70 cents per month for insurance won't be able to afford a single $75 copay, let alone the $6300 he must pony up before that $75 copay even applies. Of course, the same can be said in Ohio, where someone earning $20,000/yr and paying 70 cents per month for insurance may be able to afford a $75 copay, but that is rendered totally irrelevant by the $6300 deductible reducing their $17000 net income to $10700, an amount they simply won't get by on.
Llke you, I thought the ACA would be a good thing. Unlike you, I quickly realized it is not.
an obnoxious imposter at best
We've had that for the past 8 years (I voted for him the first time around, mind) and the country hasn't imploded. Settle your ass down.
And there's been oh so much peace between the Black and White populations since then, I'm sure. That's why BLM.
I apologize for the actions of my generation. All I ask is that, when the flamethrowers come out, you toss me one and let me fight alongside you.
I think you meant #triggered
Speed x Time = Limit
Even without artificial limits, there is still a physical limit to the speed and, well, billing periods are fixed as well, so there's the time limit. Again, Speed x Time = Limit.
At least, that's the argument Verizon customers throw in my face to explain how their 4GB/mo limit on a $90/mo plan (at least, the last time i had the argument) is better than my "unlimited" (on which I use 30+GB/mo regularly) plan for $70.
The reaction between baking soda and an acid released CO2.
At least soap wouldn't give them the runs.
I take it your parents didn't mind you swearing when you were a kid, or you'd know otherwise.
Now THAT would be a hell of a kitchen volcano!
neither can the feds (except in a declared war).
We've been under a declaration of war basically since 2001. A bullshit declaration, but, I digress...
I can tell you from experience, switching between a 15" PC laptop with a 4k screen and a 15" MacBook Pro with at 2880x1800 screen, the difference is quite noticeable. 1080p to 4k would be even more so. Of course, not everyone has 20/5 vision, so that could be your problem.
I upgraded the RAM from a mere 4GB to 16GB (the max).
Not according to Apple; all of their 2011 laptop models max out at 8GB. Of course, since the RAM isn't soldered to the board and the chipset actually supports 16GB, those of us with any sense are running that configuration.
The 2013 and newer Retina MacBook Pros should be able to support 32GB, but Apple doesn't sell them that way. With the RAM soldered, well, those machines are missing out on a fair bit of their potential.
Tack on another 4" to the screen size and another $1000 to the price and I know at least a dozen people, in addition to my wife and myself, who will be in line waiting for the Apple store to open the day it comes out.
Apple's biggest fuck up this decade was making the MacBook Pro thinner; though, making the Mac Pro a trash can is a very close second. Pro doesn't need to be beautiful, it needs to be functional, and Apple had a been maintaining a great balance between the two until 2012.
If the tests included "process X amount of data" and "download X amount of data" and were evaluating not only battery life, but also performance, they'd have to choose which one to cheat. Since (judging by 2016 MacBook Pro sales) many people don't give much if a shit about battery life, there would be incentive to sacrifice battery life to improve performance in that test; until you realize that some people do care about battery life, which removes any incentive to cheat at all.
Why do we have 3 separate threads on this article, two of which are the same exact argument?
Have you ever build a fucking Linux kernel? I mean from start to finish, starting with checking out the repo and running "make menuconfig".
I'm guessing... no.
Baahahahaha. What world do you live in? Huddleston was relaying to you an agreement he had with Apple. Did you see the agreement? No. Did you see any emails relating to the agreement? No. At best Huddleston was relaying to you conversations he had with Apple. Then you are trying to relay those conversations to me. Please read up on what hearsay means.
So, Huddleston is not a first-party source for information about Huddleston? Anything he tells me is hearsay?
I previously said if Huddleston says it, then I'll take your word.
Yet, you'll believe me if he says it?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right about now? Of course not or you'd shut up already.
None of this is on-point. None of it. That said, I would like to point out that a great many external projects get merged into the kernel mainline for each release; many of them, FUSE for example, can either be compiled into the kernel itself, compiled as runtime-loadable modules, or left out entirely (see: make menuconfig). Those are optional, as the kernel will function just fine without them and, if you don't explicitly build the kernel to include them, they won't be included. A module that you load into the kernel at runtime is not part of the kernel; or are you saying that FUSE is part of the Darwin kernel as well, if you load the FUSE kernel module? I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, as you've explicitly stated that to not be the case. In short, you're arguing with yourself at this point; you can't have it both ways.
What? bahahahaha. That's exactly what you did above.
Eh? I'll entertain this line of reasoning, for amusement's sake.
You claim Huddleston told you something 6 years ago.
Because he did.
That's hearsay in any context.
Yes, as I stated (and you quoted):
Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
However, him saying it to me (which is what I have) was not hearsay.
Do you have a recording of this conversation? I'm betting no.
if I say no, does that mean it never happened? No, it still happened, it was still said, I know it was said, my source was first-party and, therefore, not hearsay. Again, it may be hearsay when I relay it, but it was not hearsay when it came to me.
But you again you are so sure that Huddleston's arrangement with Apple didn't change in the 6 years IF everything you said was true.
Since he stopped mentioning X11 in his profile after Apple dropped X11.app, it stands to reason that either LinkedIn is an unreliable source, or he no longer works on X11 on Apple's behalf. We know he still maintains XQuartz, that much is indisputable. If he was still involved in X11 at all on Apple's behalf, it would be mentioned in his LinkedIn profile; unless, of course, you want to say that's not a reliable source, in which case you must also be willing to disregard the portion of his profile that you referenced.
Further, if you look at every single one of his commits, they're on always on weekends or odd hours of morning or night when he would, most certainly, not be on Apple's time; that's all public data. If he were maintaining XQuartz on Apple's behalf, he'd do it on Apple's time.
You can't be sure of that.
No, of course; however, being a man of reason, I can deduce it from the evidence at hand.
That's between Apple and Huddleston. If Huddleston says it, then I'll believe it. You not so much.
So, then, ask him.
I repeat: You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
Your point about using some other packaging system is irrelevant.
My point was the differences in how the other packaging systems operate. That's completely relevant to my other point, being that how the module is distributed absolutely matters.
Wow do you even read what you write? Tuxera has an agreement with MS. Your words. MS does not have an agreement with Apple.
Yes, i do. You, on the other hand, clearly don't. They have an agreement with MS, as of 2009 which will allow them to release NTFS-3g under the GPL; the the 10 years preceding that agreement, they distributed it entirely without license. From the article you clearly didn't look at:
When asked whether there were patent issues with NTFS, Välimäki said: "Microsoft has never publically said anything about patent issues with NTFS... Our open-source NTFS driver has been available for 10 years, and our commercial driver for two."
Also from that article:
"We'll be licensing our Linux NTFS under the GPL, and we have an agreement with Microsoft. If you're a user, you don't need to worry about Microsoft. We'll deal with them directly," he added.
Given that it's GPL licensed, and with Microsoft's blessing, there is nothing stopping Apple from using it.
Were you in any negotiation talks when MS approached Apple about ntfs?
No, clearly I was not. However... actually, I'mma let you finish before I go on.
MS might have wanted way more than Apple wanted to offer. So that might have been the reason they didn't do the deal.
Given that OS X still had NTFS support when NTFS-3g was released under the GPL in 2009, Apple could have forked NTFS-3g if licensing were an issue. In other words, there was a solution free of any licensing or patent issued by the time Apple dropped NTFS support from OS X so, no, it's not a licensing issue. Period.
That is a lie [git.net]. Fuse was merged to Linux mainline kernel in 2.6.14. Please check your sources
There are a lot of external modules that get merged into the kernel. It still compiles and installs as an optional module. Remember what you insinuated a couple posts ago about whether or not I actually use Linux? Let's flip that around. I run my desktop systems with the FUSE module installed and my servers without; yes, it is a module and yes, it is optional; it's also developed outside of the kernel mainline and can be updated independently of the kernel; its repo, like many others, simply gets merged into the kernel repo at stable releases.
hearsay noun information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Hearsay does not come from first-party sources. Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
Yup and I had one 6 years ago, along with the lapdock. So much potential, but they insisted on forcing their own repository on what they called "Ubuntu" (despite not using Ubuntu's repo) and never actually putting any useful working software in it. Sure, there was some useful software, but none of it worked; and there was some working software, but none of it useful.
It also had a fingerprint reader long before Apple or Samsung even considered it.
All in all, it was a decent phone if you ignored the crap desktop implementation; and, since the lapdock was implemented using standard ports (mini-HDMI and micro-USB), I was able to use it for a few projects (as a plug and play component), so it wasn't a wasted purchase.
What you say conflicts with what he lists on his public profile page. If you were me, which you would believe? Someone who claims they talked to Huddleston 6 years ago or what Huddleston has posted?
Ok, well, at this point the thread has grown longer than anyone else is gonna ever read, so it's down to you trying to convince me and me trying to convince you. Here's the thing, though: I know I talked to the man, I know what he said, I unequivocally know the facts here. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
Bahahahahaha. Have you ever actually used Linux?
Every day for 2 decades.
Just like every other OS, an update can break things.
Of course! But, it's exceedingly rare in a stable distro.
With Linux the quality of the OS is much better than MS and Apple but things have been broken in the past especially since Linus and the kernel developers don't deal with userspace. As for this "single, coherent, entity" I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Linux distros. Debian unstable or testing. Hello?
I did, at some point, say "sane" distro. Nobody sane would use unstable or testing in production; it's right in the name, you should expect problems.
Regardless? Again you know this, how?
Are you trying to say Apple tests their updates against all apps in the app store and holds them back if some 3rd-party app breaks? No? That's now I know; oh, and form conversations with Apple engineers, as mentioned in my previous post. In other words, straight from the fucking horse's mouth.
So you're saying Apple does things in their own OS which may break things in a 3rd party software. Again, so what?
So nothing, that wasn't my point, and you know that. If FUSE was packaged and provided by Apple, this wouldn't be an issue. That's the my primary point. Why they don't do it is irrelevant to whether to not it would solve the issue. Secondarily, my point is that FUSE from a vendor-maintained repository is provably more stable than FUSE from an external source. Again, why Apple does not package their own version of FUSE is irrelevant to that point.
If you want to argue my points and show me how they're wrong, you're welcome to it, but this whole time you've been arguing off-point.
There are plenty of reason why they don't want to adopt the project. You're confusing technical capability and desire. Two separate things. Again this is for what? To support an implementation of someone else's proprietary filesystem.
Of course, I'm sure there are, but that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my point that them doing so would solve the FUSE stability issues in the same way Linux distros doing so has done the same. In other words, it's off-point.
Again we get to the same argument: Not all distros have the same packages. Arch Linux does not for example have JFS by default. So far you seem to be basing your argument on what Ubuntu does, but Ubuntu does not represent all of Linux distros.
So, you quote me talking about other distros ("and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility"), then completely ignore it in your reply, claiming that I'm basing my argument on Ubuntu. You also quoted my mention of lack of even possible JFS support in OS X, which I was actually hoping you'd address by telling me I'm wrong and pointing out how to make it work, as I might find that useful at some point, and completely failed to address it.
[Citation needed]
For starters, what I wrote immediately above this. However, as that was said after I made the claim:
Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed. The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now.
So, you were wrong about that.
S