So, he was responsible for X11.app and creating XQuartz while Apple was still using X11.app; and he was responsible for transitioning OS X from using X11 to using XQuartz. Note that none of that means he worked on XQuartz on Apple's time; he, specifically, did not work on XQuartx from January 2008 to June 2009, the 18 months to which you refer, because XQuartz development didn't begin until June 2009; Apple did let him take over the project in June, as XQuartz, given that it would be done on personal time and he would provide support for it. E.g. they were willing to open source it if it meant they also did not have to spend any further resources on it.
From June 2009 through January 2013, X11.app was still in use. Notice how mentions of X11 or XQuartz stop appearing from his resume at the same time Apple dropped X11.app? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Again, from a conversation with the man himself. You just don't get a more reliable source than that. The conversation took place over 6 years ago, so you'll have to forgive my not having recalled it immediately when I first mentioned him.
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.
And you know that, how? Are you in the meetings where evil Apple engineers are twirling their mustaches like, "This will break ntfs--muhahahahahaha."
No, but I do talk to Apple engineers on a semi-regular basis; I'v even met a couple of FUSE devs. We attend the same events and we talk shop a lot. I'm not saying Apple is doing it maliciously, the Linux kernel APIs change fairly regularly (and also often unnecessarily, at a technical level) as well, but this is not a problem for Linux as the source is available to compile against. When Apple releases a new kernel, they source doesn't get released for some weeks or months after, so there is a period of time in which FUSE can not work unless the developers have advance access to the Darwin source, or are able to reverse engineer the binaries in order to generate patched headers to compile against.
You want Apple to support something they don't want to support?
There's no reason they can't adopt the project. After all, as I said, they do sell "user experience" and "reliability" and this does break that. I'm not saying I want them to; I've stopped using my Mac for anything beyond building and testing iOS apps at this point, so it's not relevant to me any longer; but I do think they should.
Do you expect your Toyota to readily use Ford parts? But Toyotas sell "reliability." is your answer?
What I suggested is that Apple do what they've done with countless other open-source projects and make it first-party. That, then, would be akin to using Toyota parts on a Toyota. Beyond that, the current situation is more akin to an aftermarket intake or exhaust, both of which I did, in fact, install on a Toyota. And, boy, was it ever reliable!
So I can just install Linux and run JFS. Oh wait, I have to install that separately and it's maintained not by Linus himself or any of the kernel developers.
You actually can on some distros. It's installed by default on Debian (and Debian-based distros like Ubuntu and Mint), and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility. Looks like the JFS FUSE module that worked back on OS X 10.2.2 is no longer viable, so what's your solution on Mac?
Everything I've said is truthful whether you want to admit or not.
I've proven otherwise in several instances. It's fine, we all misunderstand things at times, sometimes we're misinformed, or we misremember, or we simply don't know. I'm not calling you out as a liar or anything like that, because I understand that a lie requires intent to deceive and I don't believe you're intentionally making incorrect statements. That doesn't make them any more true, however.
Given all that you said, did you ever think that for one moment that the problem ISN'T Apple? Maybe MS being the assholes they've always been doesn't want anyone to work with NTFS correctly.
That covers NTFS, but what of the EXT filesystems? Or JFS? XFS? ZFS? Why not just include FUSE as an optional install? Surely it's not MS preventing them from doing so. Poor scapegoat argument is poor.
Linux being entirely open source, they can't go after any one company. BUT Apple is a com
HMTL fail, "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):" should read "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), before "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):"
This is what the OP said: "This misrepresents the situation. It's true that the last release of "X11" was some years ago, but its releases are irrelevant. The last release of X.org (1.19.0) was about a month ago"
Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old
How would Linux distros which haven't touched legacy XWindows in over a decade "remove" it? They can't, as they already did long ago, therefore you must be talking about something else; the X11 protocol, perhaps?
architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Ah, there it is!
Factually not true. Up until Panther (10.4) X11.app was optional. Then Apple started using XFree86 until Leopard (10.5) when Apple switched to X.org. It was packaged until Mountain Lion (10.8). After that Apple pointed users to open source XQuartz.. That was 4 years ago. They NEVER packaged XQuartz to users.
Wonderful. They also never officially owned the XQuartz project, though they claim it on their website. If they did, they wold be the ones hosting xquartz.org, because they're (rightly, in this instance) control freaks like that. I also was not aware Apple had ever used anything other than XQuartz for X11 support (thanks for that info, by the way), having come around to the Mac side shortly after Snow Leopard's release and having only ever used XQuartz.
When I was using XQuartz, Apple was still bundling an X server, apparently, which was not XQuartz.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
I addressed that in a separate post, no need to harp on it here.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
Except that support for XQuartz does not come from Apple, nor from any Apple-provided or supported systems, and consistently occurs only when Mr. Huddleston is not on Apple's time. Apple has their own support and ticketing systems, which XQuartz does not have access to; case in point: I reported an issue with odd behavior in XQuartz and Mr. Huddleston, after determining the issue to be in OS X, rather than XQuartz itself, referred me to Apple to report the bug. If he were, at that moment, acting as an agent of Apple, he would have accepted the report and transferred it to the correct system. However, this is his personal project and he was, rightly, not willing to work for Apple for free while working on it.
You mean other than the developer. . . I would think that Apple providing the person to keep maintaining would be enough.
So Apple bred, birthed, and raised Mr. Huddleston? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time working on the project and his time working for Apple do not overlap. See above re: the bug report.
I don't sit in Apple's offices so I would think that the structure of XQuartz is exactly as Apple wants it: They don't officially work on it, but they still support it by maintaining personnel.
Except that they're not really providing anything. Literally nothing. The project lead happens to work for them and they're jumping on that as a means to claim contribution, likely because Mr. Huddleston's employment contract dictates that they can claim ownership of anything he writes while employed by them, whether written on their time or his.
They maintain a much more direct control of CUPS as a counter example of different types of support for open source projects.
They also took over control of the CUPS project from its original maintaners. They have literally no involvement with XQuartz, though. I do recall a conversation with Mr. Huddleston regarding the X
First of all, it's "liar", not "lier". Second, if he was serving paper pages in an office environment, he's hardly a liar. Only a fool doesn't read what's right in front of him.
Before someone else points it out, yes, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is an Apple engineer. However, that does not change the fact that Apple does not provide support for XQuartz; that's handled through the XQuartz project's GitHub page. Incidentally Apple has made 0 contributions since the project was moved to GitHub. And yes, Apple has its own GitHub account.
Wow, such understanding of the issues being discussed! I'm amazed by your knowledge!
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old and the architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Well, since every major distro has been using X.org for nearly a decade, it would sure seem that you're talking about that, given that "legacy" X11 has already been removed from all of them. As an architecture, well, what do you think X.org is? Hint: It's an X11 implementation.
What did Apple drop support for?
XQuartz. They used to package and provide their own binaries, now they do not.
X.org is still ongoing and Apple supports it calling their implementation XQuartz
Actually, it's not Apple's implementation, they simply contribute (very little) to it. Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is the lead developer on the project, and he has no affiliation with Apple. The XQuartz project has its own non-Apple support, provided by the community. Apple no longer supports it, as Apple no longer provides it with the OS and it does not belong to Apple; I doubt very much that anyone at Apple is even familiar enough with it in its current state to be able to provide such support.
It's not installed by default
It is also no longer provided, or supported, by Apple. Back when Apple did provide it with the OS, it was their own binary package, compiled, shipped, and supported by them. Now, it's a 3rd-party package with external, non-Apple support. Remember what you said, in the other thread, about Apple's support requirements for 3rd-party applications? Right.
and last release was 29 Oct 2016.
And what, pray-tell, was Apple's contribution to that release? The one before it? Before that? How far back must one go to find Apple's contribution?
Before you spout off that I have no idea WTF I'm talking, I've contributed to the project more recently than Apple.
Wait, what day did your Airpods arrive? You must've gotten the first pair off the line in order to have charged them, used them for 3 days, and charged them again. Or, you're full of shit.
Congratulations, you're in the very small minority of people for whom Earpods/Airpods are actually a good fit.
That you, and many people on here, ignore the "+5, Funny", which is what I was actually going for, in order to proclaim that anyone who doesn't like Airpods must be an Apple detractor is the real irony, I think, as I look around at all the Apple gear in my home. Since you seem to want to ignore the humor and be all serious, here's some serious for you:
Earpods/Airpods are a fixed-insert earbud; look at literally every other earbud of similar design and you'll notice one thing they have all in common: they're the cheap low-end offering from whoever made them. Better earbuds, invariably, have removable tips available in multiple sizes, which seal against the ear canal for improved bass response.
Please explain to me how but ntfs-3g is not 3rd party to both Linux and OS X which was my original point.
I never said it wasn't, but your point that it is is invalid. How it's installed and updated on the system makes a huge difference in how reliable it will be.
You seem intent on blaming Apple for a 3rd party implementation being poor.
No, the implementation is not poor, the APIs on Apple's end of things are changing, often unnecessarily. That's what I'm blaming Apple for, if you want to say I'm blaming apple for anything; in reality, I'm pointing out that (and why) FUSE/ntfs-3g is more reliable, and an actual viable solution, under Linux, where it is not so under OS X.
Apple has no obligation not to break 3rd party software. Apple has no obligation to update 3rd party software.
Indeed, but Apple also sells "user experience" and "reliability".
I don't you understand how Linux and open works.
I'm certain I do, I've been using it for a couple decades by now, but I'll play along.
Fuse is now part of the Linux kernel tree.
So the standalone kernel module has ceased development? Oh, wait, no, you can get FUSE modules for BSD kernels, which is how ntfs-3g works under OS X in the first place, so yes, it's still its own separate project. A lot of separate projects have a home within the Linux kernel tree.
ntfs-3g is 3rd party by Tuxera
Wow, you said something that was actually truthful and correct!
Fuse for OS X is maintained by Benjamin Fleischer
Right, and it's based on the FUSE for BSD code maintained by Ilya Putsikau, who adapted it from libFUSE which, if you open your eyes and actually look at it, is not a part of the Linux kernel.
These are all 3rd parties to Apple.
Apple uses a lot of 3rd-party code*. Perhaps they should consider the reality that many of their users are developers who also work with Windows and Linux systems that serve markets Apple themselves have stated they have no interest in pursuing, and that those users would benefit (and, as a result, so would Apple**) from Apple taking simple steps to better integrate FUSE so things like ntfs-3g and EXT filesystem drivers "just work"? It really wouldn't cost Apple more than an hour or two of developer time; Fleischer has made the source code available on GitHub and the only updates it sees are API patches when Apple breaks it. One additional Mac sale would pay for the work to integrate it.
* Much of what is listed here is Apple's contributions to 3rd-party projects; all of what's listed here is build against 3rd-party projects. ** By making it easier for more developers who have to work with other systems to do so on Apple hardware, thereby increasing their potential market.
I'm not worried about my job, I freelance. Primarily, I work for a client in Florida, on a permanent contract paying more than I could find anyone willing to pay me in the valley. It helps that I had a hand in writing the software their business runs on; it also helps that they tried several other contractors before coming back to woo me away from the company that wrote that software and all of them failed miserably, even with my hand-holding to get them up to speed. They don't want to risk dealing with another incompetent dev, so I didn't even have to ask for my current rate, it's what they offered me at the onset of the contract; if I ever need more, I'll negotiate it.
...then you're not poor because you had $130,000-$160,000 laying around for a downpayment on a house.
and the interest is 4%...
...then you've already got a couple car loans and at least one mortgage, all paid off already, on your credit report and are, likely, not poor.
Most people who rent, rather than buy, already know it's roughly the same cost (factoring in upkeep and property taxes) to do either; it's typically not idiocy or ignorance that leads to them choosing to rent. Typically, it's not even a choice; I don't know anybody with enough money to put even 5% down on a house who has chosen to continue renting, but I do know a lot of people who rent, myself being one of them, given that my grandparents (and, now that they've passed, my mother) have managed properties for longer than I've been alive.
These aren't people who can just write a check for $130k, sign a few papers, and boom there's a house.
As an Ohio transplant to the Bay Area, I can tell you things are certainly more expensive here than in Ohio; the two California cities you are comparing to are irrelevant. It may not be 40%, but it's not 0, either and it is a significant amount. About the only things I don't pay more for here than i did there are my phone plan (nationally priced) and car insurance; and the latter is more the result of California's annual rate reduction law, a younger friend of mine pays more than double what I was paying at his age for a similar vehicle.
The median home value in Tracy is $438,000, averaging $211 per square foot. In Fairfield, where I currently reside, it's $399,800, averaging $220/sq-ft. Cleveland? $59,900, averaging just $48/sq-ft. That roughly falls in line with what I paid for rent there vs what I pay today; I pay 3-1/3x as much rent for 5sq-ft more than I had in Cleveland.
However, I make more than 7x what I made when I lived in Cleveland, but am barely any further ahead financially as a result. If my spending habits and lifestyle haven't changed substantially (they haven't) and things aren't more expensive here, what's the explanation?
Well, I'll tell ya, since I was just back in Cleveland for a week last month and, save for the cost of the hotel room and rental car, I lived for that week, same as I live here, on what I spend on the average day here.
Yes, shit's more expensive in California, doesn't matter the city, than it is in Ohio. Now that you've made me reflect on my recent trip, I see that my 40% figure was way off; it should have been much, much higher.
The kind of retarded shit that also pays 40% more for everything else they have to buy. $200k on $50k in Ohio? Sure, no problem. In the Bay area? No can do.
I expect updates to allow the app to run on the most recent OS version, if for no reason other than they're still trying to sell the app to new users who will be running that version. But, really, that has fuck all to do with app running on old devices; in fact, apps that don't get updates will run on those old devices for longer.
My point wasn't that Android was any better; I'm not after a pissing match as I use both platforms extensively. The irony of the other poster calling my an irrational bigot and saying I don't care about logic in response to my pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument, however, is stunning.
My point, since you (and the other poster) plainly missed it, is that not every single app in the app store works on your iPhone 5 and it is fallacious to even claim such as only one counterpoint is required to prove your statement completely false.
Slashdot Mirror
So, he was responsible for X11.app and creating XQuartz while Apple was still using X11.app; and he was responsible for transitioning OS X from using X11 to using XQuartz. Note that none of that means he worked on XQuartz on Apple's time; he, specifically, did not work on XQuartx from January 2008 to June 2009, the 18 months to which you refer, because XQuartz development didn't begin until June 2009; Apple did let him take over the project in June, as XQuartz, given that it would be done on personal time and he would provide support for it. E.g. they were willing to open source it if it meant they also did not have to spend any further resources on it.
From June 2009 through January 2013, X11.app was still in use. Notice how mentions of X11 or XQuartz stop appearing from his resume at the same time Apple dropped X11.app? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Again, from a conversation with the man himself. You just don't get a more reliable source than that. The conversation took place over 6 years ago, so you'll have to forgive my not having recalled it immediately when I first mentioned him.
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.
And you know that, how? Are you in the meetings where evil Apple engineers are twirling their mustaches like, "This will break ntfs--muhahahahahaha."
No, but I do talk to Apple engineers on a semi-regular basis; I'v even met a couple of FUSE devs. We attend the same events and we talk shop a lot. I'm not saying Apple is doing it maliciously, the Linux kernel APIs change fairly regularly (and also often unnecessarily, at a technical level) as well, but this is not a problem for Linux as the source is available to compile against. When Apple releases a new kernel, they source doesn't get released for some weeks or months after, so there is a period of time in which FUSE can not work unless the developers have advance access to the Darwin source, or are able to reverse engineer the binaries in order to generate patched headers to compile against.
You want Apple to support something they don't want to support?
There's no reason they can't adopt the project. After all, as I said, they do sell "user experience" and "reliability" and this does break that. I'm not saying I want them to; I've stopped using my Mac for anything beyond building and testing iOS apps at this point, so it's not relevant to me any longer; but I do think they should.
Do you expect your Toyota to readily use Ford parts? But Toyotas sell "reliability." is your answer?
What I suggested is that Apple do what they've done with countless other open-source projects and make it first-party. That, then, would be akin to using Toyota parts on a Toyota. Beyond that, the current situation is more akin to an aftermarket intake or exhaust, both of which I did, in fact, install on a Toyota. And, boy, was it ever reliable!
So I can just install Linux and run JFS. Oh wait, I have to install that separately and it's maintained not by Linus himself or any of the kernel developers.
You actually can on some distros. It's installed by default on Debian (and Debian-based distros like Ubuntu and Mint), and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility. Looks like the JFS FUSE module that worked back on OS X 10.2.2 is no longer viable, so what's your solution on Mac?
Everything I've said is truthful whether you want to admit or not.
I've proven otherwise in several instances. It's fine, we all misunderstand things at times, sometimes we're misinformed, or we misremember, or we simply don't know. I'm not calling you out as a liar or anything like that, because I understand that a lie requires intent to deceive and I don't believe you're intentionally making incorrect statements. That doesn't make them any more true, however.
Given all that you said, did you ever think that for one moment that the problem ISN'T Apple? Maybe MS being the assholes they've always been doesn't want anyone to work with NTFS correctly.
That covers NTFS, but what of the EXT filesystems? Or JFS? XFS? ZFS? Why not just include FUSE as an optional install? Surely it's not MS preventing them from doing so. Poor scapegoat argument is poor.
Linux being entirely open source, they can't go after any one company. BUT Apple is a com
HMTL fail, "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):" should read "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), before "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):"
This is what the OP said: "This misrepresents the situation. It's true that the last release of "X11" was some years ago, but its releases are irrelevant. The last release of X.org (1.19.0) was about a month ago"
Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old
How would Linux distros which haven't touched legacy XWindows in over a decade "remove" it? They can't, as they already did long ago, therefore you must be talking about something else; the X11 protocol, perhaps?
architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Ah, there it is!
Factually not true. Up until Panther (10.4) X11.app was optional. Then Apple started using XFree86 until Leopard (10.5) when Apple switched to X.org. It was packaged until Mountain Lion (10.8). After that Apple pointed users to open source XQuartz.. That was 4 years ago. They NEVER packaged XQuartz to users.
Wonderful. They also never officially owned the XQuartz project, though they claim it on their website. If they did, they wold be the ones hosting xquartz.org, because they're (rightly, in this instance) control freaks like that. I also was not aware Apple had ever used anything other than XQuartz for X11 support (thanks for that info, by the way), having come around to the Mac side shortly after Snow Leopard's release and having only ever used XQuartz.
When I was using XQuartz, Apple was still bundling an X server, apparently, which was not XQuartz.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
I addressed that in a separate post, no need to harp on it here.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
Except that support for XQuartz does not come from Apple, nor from any Apple-provided or supported systems, and consistently occurs only when Mr. Huddleston is not on Apple's time. Apple has their own support and ticketing systems, which XQuartz does not have access to; case in point: I reported an issue with odd behavior in XQuartz and Mr. Huddleston, after determining the issue to be in OS X, rather than XQuartz itself, referred me to Apple to report the bug. If he were, at that moment, acting as an agent of Apple, he would have accepted the report and transferred it to the correct system. However, this is his personal project and he was, rightly, not willing to work for Apple for free while working on it.
You mean other than the developer. . . I would think that Apple providing the person to keep maintaining would be enough.
So Apple bred, birthed, and raised Mr. Huddleston? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time working on the project and his time working for Apple do not overlap. See above re: the bug report.
I don't sit in Apple's offices so I would think that the structure of XQuartz is exactly as Apple wants it: They don't officially work on it, but they still support it by maintaining personnel.
Except that they're not really providing anything. Literally nothing. The project lead happens to work for them and they're jumping on that as a means to claim contribution, likely because Mr. Huddleston's employment contract dictates that they can claim ownership of anything he writes while employed by them, whether written on their time or his.
They maintain a much more direct control of CUPS as a counter example of different types of support for open source projects.
They also took over control of the CUPS project from its original maintaners. They have literally no involvement with XQuartz, though. I do recall a conversation with Mr. Huddleston regarding the X
Howso? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time spent working for Apple and his time working on the project do not overlap.
And an idiot who can't understand that sheets of paper are called "pages" and people you serve them to are, often, called "clients" is still an idiot.
First of all, it's "liar", not "lier". Second, if he was serving paper pages in an office environment, he's hardly a liar. Only a fool doesn't read what's right in front of him.
So, the porn stash then?
Before someone else points it out, yes, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is an Apple engineer. However, that does not change the fact that Apple does not provide support for XQuartz; that's handled through the XQuartz project's GitHub page. Incidentally Apple has made 0 contributions since the project was moved to GitHub. And yes, Apple has its own GitHub account.
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old and the architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Well, since every major distro has been using X.org for nearly a decade, it would sure seem that you're talking about that, given that "legacy" X11 has already been removed from all of them. As an architecture, well, what do you think X.org is? Hint: It's an X11 implementation.
What did Apple drop support for?
XQuartz. They used to package and provide their own binaries, now they do not.
X.org is still ongoing and Apple supports it calling their implementation XQuartz
Actually, it's not Apple's implementation, they simply contribute (very little) to it. Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is the lead developer on the project, and he has no affiliation with Apple. The XQuartz project has its own non-Apple support, provided by the community. Apple no longer supports it, as Apple no longer provides it with the OS and it does not belong to Apple; I doubt very much that anyone at Apple is even familiar enough with it in its current state to be able to provide such support.
It's not installed by default
It is also no longer provided, or supported, by Apple. Back when Apple did provide it with the OS, it was their own binary package, compiled, shipped, and supported by them. Now, it's a 3rd-party package with external, non-Apple support. Remember what you said, in the other thread, about Apple's support requirements for 3rd-party applications? Right.
and last release was 29 Oct 2016.
And what, pray-tell, was Apple's contribution to that release? The one before it? Before that? How far back must one go to find Apple's contribution?
Before you spout off that I have no idea WTF I'm talking, I've contributed to the project more recently than Apple.
Wait, what day did your Airpods arrive? You must've gotten the first pair off the line in order to have charged them, used them for 3 days, and charged them again. Or, you're full of shit.
Congratulations, you're in the very small minority of people for whom Earpods/Airpods are actually a good fit.
That you, and many people on here, ignore the "+5, Funny", which is what I was actually going for, in order to proclaim that anyone who doesn't like Airpods must be an Apple detractor is the real irony, I think, as I look around at all the Apple gear in my home. Since you seem to want to ignore the humor and be all serious, here's some serious for you:
Earpods/Airpods are a fixed-insert earbud; look at literally every other earbud of similar design and you'll notice one thing they have all in common: they're the cheap low-end offering from whoever made them. Better earbuds, invariably, have removable tips available in multiple sizes, which seal against the ear canal for improved bass response.
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand: being able to afford a house.
Please explain to me how but ntfs-3g is not 3rd party to both Linux and OS X which was my original point.
I never said it wasn't, but your point that it is is invalid. How it's installed and updated on the system makes a huge difference in how reliable it will be.
You seem intent on blaming Apple for a 3rd party implementation being poor.
No, the implementation is not poor, the APIs on Apple's end of things are changing, often unnecessarily. That's what I'm blaming Apple for, if you want to say I'm blaming apple for anything; in reality, I'm pointing out that (and why) FUSE/ntfs-3g is more reliable, and an actual viable solution, under Linux, where it is not so under OS X.
Apple has no obligation not to break 3rd party software. Apple has no obligation to update 3rd party software.
Indeed, but Apple also sells "user experience" and "reliability".
I don't you understand how Linux and open works.
I'm certain I do, I've been using it for a couple decades by now, but I'll play along.
Fuse is now part of the Linux kernel tree.
So the standalone kernel module has ceased development? Oh, wait, no, you can get FUSE modules for BSD kernels, which is how ntfs-3g works under OS X in the first place, so yes, it's still its own separate project. A lot of separate projects have a home within the Linux kernel tree.
ntfs-3g is 3rd party by Tuxera
Wow, you said something that was actually truthful and correct!
Fuse for OS X is maintained by Benjamin Fleischer
Right, and it's based on the FUSE for BSD code maintained by Ilya Putsikau, who adapted it from libFUSE which, if you open your eyes and actually look at it, is not a part of the Linux kernel.
These are all 3rd parties to Apple.
Apple uses a lot of 3rd-party code*. Perhaps they should consider the reality that many of their users are developers who also work with Windows and Linux systems that serve markets Apple themselves have stated they have no interest in pursuing, and that those users would benefit (and, as a result, so would Apple**) from Apple taking simple steps to better integrate FUSE so things like ntfs-3g and EXT filesystem drivers "just work"? It really wouldn't cost Apple more than an hour or two of developer time; Fleischer has made the source code available on GitHub and the only updates it sees are API patches when Apple breaks it. One additional Mac sale would pay for the work to integrate it.
* Much of what is listed here is Apple's contributions to 3rd-party projects; all of what's listed here is build against 3rd-party projects.
** By making it easier for more developers who have to work with other systems to do so on Apple hardware, thereby increasing their potential market.
I'm not worried about my job, I freelance. Primarily, I work for a client in Florida, on a permanent contract paying more than I could find anyone willing to pay me in the valley. It helps that I had a hand in writing the software their business runs on; it also helps that they tried several other contractors before coming back to woo me away from the company that wrote that software and all of them failed miserably, even with my hand-holding to get them up to speed. They don't want to risk dealing with another incompetent dev, so I didn't even have to ask for my current rate, it's what they offered me at the onset of the contract; if I ever need more, I'll negotiate it.
If you pay 20% down...
...then you're not poor because you had $130,000-$160,000 laying around for a downpayment on a house.
and the interest is 4%...
...then you've already got a couple car loans and at least one mortgage, all paid off already, on your credit report and are, likely, not poor.
Most people who rent, rather than buy, already know it's roughly the same cost (factoring in upkeep and property taxes) to do either; it's typically not idiocy or ignorance that leads to them choosing to rent. Typically, it's not even a choice; I don't know anybody with enough money to put even 5% down on a house who has chosen to continue renting, but I do know a lot of people who rent, myself being one of them, given that my grandparents (and, now that they've passed, my mother) have managed properties for longer than I've been alive.
These aren't people who can just write a check for $130k, sign a few papers, and boom there's a house.
As an Ohio transplant to the Bay Area, I can tell you things are certainly more expensive here than in Ohio; the two California cities you are comparing to are irrelevant. It may not be 40%, but it's not 0, either and it is a significant amount. About the only things I don't pay more for here than i did there are my phone plan (nationally priced) and car insurance; and the latter is more the result of California's annual rate reduction law, a younger friend of mine pays more than double what I was paying at his age for a similar vehicle.
The median home value in Tracy is $438,000, averaging $211 per square foot. In Fairfield, where I currently reside, it's $399,800, averaging $220/sq-ft. Cleveland? $59,900, averaging just $48/sq-ft. That roughly falls in line with what I paid for rent there vs what I pay today; I pay 3-1/3x as much rent for 5sq-ft more than I had in Cleveland.
However, I make more than 7x what I made when I lived in Cleveland, but am barely any further ahead financially as a result. If my spending habits and lifestyle haven't changed substantially (they haven't) and things aren't more expensive here, what's the explanation?
Well, I'll tell ya, since I was just back in Cleveland for a week last month and, save for the cost of the hotel room and rental car, I lived for that week, same as I live here, on what I spend on the average day here.
Yes, shit's more expensive in California, doesn't matter the city, than it is in Ohio. Now that you've made me reflect on my recent trip, I see that my 40% figure was way off; it should have been much, much higher.
No they weren't. If they were there first, they would've owned the houses they live in, and the rising property price would be a good thing.
How's that workin' out out for ya, Tonto?
The kind of retarded shit that also pays 40% more for everything else they have to buy. $200k on $50k in Ohio? Sure, no problem. In the Bay area? No can do.
First, in the context of gentrification, means "before the fucking gentrification", not "before anyone fucking else". Don't be that dense.
Not if they were renting.
It's not that the home is 30 years old, it's that he still can't afford it. Why don't you take your own advice, you ignorant prick?
I expect updates to allow the app to run on the most recent OS version, if for no reason other than they're still trying to sell the app to new users who will be running that version. But, really, that has fuck all to do with app running on old devices; in fact, apps that don't get updates will run on those old devices for longer.
So... What was your point?
They literally run away from your ear so you have to buy another pair.
My point wasn't that Android was any better; I'm not after a pissing match as I use both platforms extensively. The irony of the other poster calling my an irrational bigot and saying I don't care about logic in response to my pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument, however, is stunning.
My point, since you (and the other poster) plainly missed it, is that not every single app in the app store works on your iPhone 5 and it is fallacious to even claim such as only one counterpoint is required to prove your statement completely false.