I too have the classic discussion system enabled in my prefs. The performance issues are one thing, but I can't figure out what the fuck's what with the 2.0 version. Every time I scroll, the page seems to go nowhere, then it offers to load "x" number of more comments, which then changes to a completely random "x" again. What a god-awful mess. If this was an attempt to mimic Digg's discussion system (and aren't most recent Slashdot developments a reaction to Digg's popularity?), then they failed miserably.
And, as mentioned, even if you opt for the classic discussion system, you can't escape some 2.0 elements, like on the front page. And don't even get me started on metamod. It is not meta-moderating anymore, and I'm not even sure what the new system is supposed to accomplish. The FAQ hasn't been updated to clue us in on what any of this shit means.
Jobs couldn't care less, because this will appeal only to the hacker elite IF and WHEN it makes it out into the wild. Plus he's happy you already paid for his shiny toy.
What about Hulu and Netflix and YouTube on which Apple makes no money, but allows on the iPhone/iTouch/iPad? Simple fact of the matter is that Flash is a resource hog. People who have jailbroken their iPhones and installed Adobe's sample apps have saw their iPhones slow to a crawl. Flash *is* ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's good or that it should be allowed to run everywhere.
If only Slashdot could mod you higher than +5. This is the obvious answer. I mean, who wants to be doing the exact same thing they were doing at 22 years old when they are 40? Now, you might want to use your years of experience to manage a group that does the same thing...
With OS X 10.3 (which is running on the Nokia in question here), the minimum RAM requirement was 128 MB (source). It's only been since 10.5 that the RAM requirements have been that high, or IIRC that the installer even warns you about your low RAM.
The real question is why they are using PearPC to emulate the PowerPC architecture? Wouldn't an x86 version of OS X be easier to get up and running, and maybe even approach something usable? Or, as posted above, try run the iPhone OS instead?
If only they were streaming from a 35mm projector then. The problem is they are encoded at 29fps for NTSC markets--where most of the movies were made--and then sped up, or frames cut, for PAL.
I'm 100% in agreement with you about how great the iPhone is for keeping everything in sync. I sync with MobileMe and my company's Zimbra server--it's so great how everything "just works" (to borrow a tired Apple cliche, but it's really true here. I've been through Treos, and a couple of HTC models (8525 and Tilt), and they were nightmares in this regard.
But, it looks like you have no way to get music on to your iPhone (apparently not a big deal for you, and not for me either. I've got iPods for that). But what about firmware updates? AFAIK, there is no way to get them without tethering to iTunes.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions...competent and thoughtful users are one reason/. still rules over Digg:-)
Just an OT question here: Since you are a Linux user, how do you sync, charge and update your iPhone? iTunes via Wine? Or a full-fledged VM solution like VMWare? I have several Macs along with my Linux boxen, and I've tinkered with using my iPhone with Linux, but it's just plain easier to plug it into a Mac and not worry about the rather troublesome iTunes installation via Wine. Or is there some solution available to jailbroken iPhones that allows syncing without iTunes?
It has been on bootleg video since the day after it aired. It was somewhat hard to track down in the days before the Interwebs, but it's very easily found these days.
The real question here, which we can't get answered because there is no link, is what kind of screening are they holding? Something from the master tapes, or a DVD-R bootleg hooked to a digital projector?
Great video, but I find it hard to believe that Star Wars/computer nerds are just now discovering this. I saw it a year and a half ago--the YouTube upload date is two years ago (November 20, 2007).
On December 1, 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved the remaining single-letter and single-digit domain names. The few domains that were already assigned were grandfathered in and continued to exist.
Among the list of grandfathered-in domains was x.org.
You've got the concept right--one thing is a loss leader for Apple. But that is the Store. They barely make enough to cover the servers and bandwidth; the majority goes to the labels, with a few pennies to the artists and what's left to Apple. The Store is a loss leader for iPod sales, where Apple makes their traditional high margins.
Wish I had my mod points right now, as I would give you a +1 Insightful, good sir. You have articulated my whole problem with Joomla. The basic concepts are made needlessly complicated, with terminology that is counter-intuitive.
As others say below, this is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to do anything beyond the basic functionality described in the GP post, you get into mambots, and that's a whole other system to learn, just to get things done.
If you ask me, the point of a CMS is to make it simple to put up pages that are organized into different sections of the site. Some people see how to do this in Joomla right away, but for me, I didn't get it until I read a book like the one in this/. book review. By that time, I had found the CMS that worked for me--CMSMS.
If it bothers you that much, then fine, install on top of 10.5.x. As I said, you are unlikely to run into any problems if you do. More so than any previous OS X upgrade.
If you want to take a few extra hours to clean install, in my opinion, it's worth it. But to many others, it's not, and they won't have to if they don't want to.
OS X apps have had 32-bit and 64-bit executables in their bundles for quite some time now. At least since 10.4, if not some point in 10.3 (it was definitely soon after the arrival of the first G5), so this is a non-issue.
I know there are true shared libraries (Unix-style) and OS X Frameworks--two separate entities--but I was dumbing it down for those who don't want to get all pedantic about it.
And, lastly, I know that OS X apps have always utilized Frameworks. But the point is, in Snow Leopard, Apple is utilizing Frameworks more than ever. I mean, how else can Mail.app shrink for 192 MB to 16 MB? It's not just the PPC code being excised.
I appreciate your clarifying things, but it is obscuring my main point--apps in Snow Leopard, and the OS itself, are VERY lean compared to any previous version of OS X, and there is a noticeable speed boost.
Yes, because many (all?) of the Apple-supplied apps have been slimmed down from Universal Binaries to Intel-only executables. Also, there has been considerable "tightening up" of the Apple-supplied apps in that they use Frameworks (what's known as dynamic libraries or shared libraries on other OS's) as much as possible, instead of having nearly all code stuffed in their.app bundle.
But, I've noticed that to get maximum space efficiency, you need to do a clean install. For example, Rosetta (the PowerPC translator) is optional at install, but it is not checked by default on a clean install. If you upgrade, Rosetta is already there, and it will stay there.
So long story short, you should see space improvements either way, but I still find it worth it to back up and do a clean install.
As someone who has been testing Snow Leopard in many different scenarios for the past four months, I can say this is one update that will likely give you no problems if you install over the top of your existing 10.5.x installation.
But, for maximum speed and efficiency, I would back up your user data and apps, and do a clean install. Snow Leopard is very lean and mean, and I noticed considerably more Snappiness on machines where I clean-installed and manually migrated my data.
No doubt, it is a modern fable that we all believe. I could go into more detail to try and convince you that I really did meet this guy that claimed to work at Netscape. For example, he talked about they didn't take CSS seriously, and how Netscape had its own plans for separating content from styling.
But in the end, it doesn't matter. Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. We can look at the history book and see what happened. Yes, Microsoft used very predatory and anti-competitive practices to destroy Netscape. But Netscape didn't help themselves at all by being very, very complacent. Netscape Navigator 4.x sucked major balls in comparison to IE 4 and 5, especially IE 5 for Mac (which I considered to be the best browser on the planet for a year or so). Being a long-time Mac user, and therefore naturally inclined against Microsoft, I had resisted IE for a long time. I remember downloading that IE 5.smi (one of the precursors to the modern.dmg) and being blown away at how much faster and attractive it was compared to the Netscape 4 I had been holding on to.
Anyway, I digress. Believe the story or not, I think we all know that Netscape blew it and I wouldn't give this guy one dime of venture capital.
Once on a flight, I was reading a book about web standards, and the guy sitting next to me struck up a conversation. He said that he knew a lot about the web, joining Netscape in 1995 and staying near the end, being one of the last two or three employees. He said that Netscape was undone because upper management got extremely arrogant over their initial dominance in the browser market. They thought nobody, not even Microsoft could take them down.
He said they would laugh at feature requests by users, play foosball and drink beer all day...basically one big party while IE slowly and surely crushed them.
Based on this, I would be very wary that anyone associated with the original Netscape has the management skills to make a new browser a success.
Slashdot Mirror
I too have the classic discussion system enabled in my prefs. The performance issues are one thing, but I can't figure out what the fuck's what with the 2.0 version. Every time I scroll, the page seems to go nowhere, then it offers to load "x" number of more comments, which then changes to a completely random "x" again. What a god-awful mess. If this was an attempt to mimic Digg's discussion system (and aren't most recent Slashdot developments a reaction to Digg's popularity?), then they failed miserably.
And, as mentioned, even if you opt for the classic discussion system, you can't escape some 2.0 elements, like on the front page. And don't even get me started on metamod. It is not meta-moderating anymore, and I'm not even sure what the new system is supposed to accomplish. The FAQ hasn't been updated to clue us in on what any of this shit means.
The one key system
Jobs couldn't care less, because this will appeal only to the hacker elite IF and WHEN it makes it out into the wild. Plus he's happy you already paid for his shiny toy.
The iPod touch, with Handbrake-ripped content, has been serving this purpose for my kid for a while. It's been upgraded to an iPad lately.
What about Hulu and Netflix and YouTube on which Apple makes no money, but allows on the iPhone/iTouch/iPad? Simple fact of the matter is that Flash is a resource hog. People who have jailbroken their iPhones and installed Adobe's sample apps have saw their iPhones slow to a crawl. Flash *is* ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's good or that it should be allowed to run everywhere.
Darn, I thought Wikipedia was going to explain today's global outrage.
If only Slashdot could mod you higher than +5. This is the obvious answer. I mean, who wants to be doing the exact same thing they were doing at 22 years old when they are 40? Now, you might want to use your years of experience to manage a group that does the same thing...
With OS X 10.3 (which is running on the Nokia in question here), the minimum RAM requirement was 128 MB (source). It's only been since 10.5 that the RAM requirements have been that high, or IIRC that the installer even warns you about your low RAM.
The real question is why they are using PearPC to emulate the PowerPC architecture? Wouldn't an x86 version of OS X be easier to get up and running, and maybe even approach something usable? Or, as posted above, try run the iPhone OS instead?
If only they were streaming from a 35mm projector then. The problem is they are encoded at 29fps for NTSC markets--where most of the movies were made--and then sped up, or frames cut, for PAL.
I'm 100% in agreement with you about how great the iPhone is for keeping everything in sync. I sync with MobileMe and my company's Zimbra server--it's so great how everything "just works" (to borrow a tired Apple cliche, but it's really true here. I've been through Treos, and a couple of HTC models (8525 and Tilt), and they were nightmares in this regard.
But, it looks like you have no way to get music on to your iPhone (apparently not a big deal for you, and not for me either. I've got iPods for that). But what about firmware updates? AFAIK, there is no way to get them without tethering to iTunes.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions...competent and thoughtful users are one reason /. still rules over Digg :-)
Just an OT question here: Since you are a Linux user, how do you sync, charge and update your iPhone? iTunes via Wine? Or a full-fledged VM solution like VMWare? I have several Macs along with my Linux boxen, and I've tinkered with using my iPhone with Linux, but it's just plain easier to plug it into a Mac and not worry about the rather troublesome iTunes installation via Wine. Or is there some solution available to jailbroken iPhones that allows syncing without iTunes?
It has been on bootleg video since the day after it aired. It was somewhat hard to track down in the days before the Interwebs, but it's very easily found these days.
The real question here, which we can't get answered because there is no link, is what kind of screening are they holding? Something from the master tapes, or a DVD-R bootleg hooked to a digital projector?
Great video, but I find it hard to believe that Star Wars/computer nerds are just now discovering this. I saw it a year and a half ago--the YouTube upload date is two years ago (November 20, 2007).
On December 1, 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved the remaining single-letter and single-digit domain names. The few domains that were already assigned were grandfathered in and continued to exist.
Among the list of grandfathered-in domains was x.org.
Rare, but ICANN has allowed them from time to time. Never visisted x.org? Turn in your geek card for unfamiliarity with the X11 protocol. :-)
Why not grab the source code, install gcc from your OS X Developer Tools disc and try it for yourself?
Get the source here
You've got the concept right--one thing is a loss leader for Apple. But that is the Store. They barely make enough to cover the servers and bandwidth; the majority goes to the labels, with a few pennies to the artists and what's left to Apple. The Store is a loss leader for iPod sales, where Apple makes their traditional high margins.
Wish I had my mod points right now, as I would give you a +1 Insightful, good sir. You have articulated my whole problem with Joomla. The basic concepts are made needlessly complicated, with terminology that is counter-intuitive.
As others say below, this is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to do anything beyond the basic functionality described in the GP post, you get into mambots, and that's a whole other system to learn, just to get things done.
If you ask me, the point of a CMS is to make it simple to put up pages that are organized into different sections of the site. Some people see how to do this in Joomla right away, but for me, I didn't get it until I read a book like the one in this /. book review. By that time, I had found the CMS that worked for me--CMSMS.
If it bothers you that much, then fine, install on top of 10.5.x. As I said, you are unlikely to run into any problems if you do. More so than any previous OS X upgrade.
If you want to take a few extra hours to clean install, in my opinion, it's worth it. But to many others, it's not, and they won't have to if they don't want to.
OS X apps have had 32-bit and 64-bit executables in their bundles for quite some time now. At least since 10.4, if not some point in 10.3 (it was definitely soon after the arrival of the first G5), so this is a non-issue.
I know there are true shared libraries (Unix-style) and OS X Frameworks--two separate entities--but I was dumbing it down for those who don't want to get all pedantic about it.
And, lastly, I know that OS X apps have always utilized Frameworks. But the point is, in Snow Leopard, Apple is utilizing Frameworks more than ever. I mean, how else can Mail.app shrink for 192 MB to 16 MB? It's not just the PPC code being excised.
I appreciate your clarifying things, but it is obscuring my main point--apps in Snow Leopard, and the OS itself, are VERY lean compared to any previous version of OS X, and there is a noticeable speed boost.
Yes, because many (all?) of the Apple-supplied apps have been slimmed down from Universal Binaries to Intel-only executables. Also, there has been considerable "tightening up" of the Apple-supplied apps in that they use Frameworks (what's known as dynamic libraries or shared libraries on other OS's) as much as possible, instead of having nearly all code stuffed in their .app bundle.
But, I've noticed that to get maximum space efficiency, you need to do a clean install. For example, Rosetta (the PowerPC translator) is optional at install, but it is not checked by default on a clean install. If you upgrade, Rosetta is already there, and it will stay there.
So long story short, you should see space improvements either way, but I still find it worth it to back up and do a clean install.
As someone who has been testing Snow Leopard in many different scenarios for the past four months, I can say this is one update that will likely give you no problems if you install over the top of your existing 10.5.x installation.
But, for maximum speed and efficiency, I would back up your user data and apps, and do a clean install. Snow Leopard is very lean and mean, and I noticed considerably more Snappiness on machines where I clean-installed and manually migrated my data.
No doubt, it is a modern fable that we all believe. I could go into more detail to try and convince you that I really did meet this guy that claimed to work at Netscape. For example, he talked about they didn't take CSS seriously, and how Netscape had its own plans for separating content from styling.
But in the end, it doesn't matter. Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. We can look at the history book and see what happened. Yes, Microsoft used very predatory and anti-competitive practices to destroy Netscape. But Netscape didn't help themselves at all by being very, very complacent. Netscape Navigator 4.x sucked major balls in comparison to IE 4 and 5, especially IE 5 for Mac (which I considered to be the best browser on the planet for a year or so). Being a long-time Mac user, and therefore naturally inclined against Microsoft, I had resisted IE for a long time. I remember downloading that IE 5 .smi (one of the precursors to the modern .dmg) and being blown away at how much faster and attractive it was compared to the Netscape 4 I had been holding on to.
Anyway, I digress. Believe the story or not, I think we all know that Netscape blew it and I wouldn't give this guy one dime of venture capital.
Once on a flight, I was reading a book about web standards, and the guy sitting next to me struck up a conversation. He said that he knew a lot about the web, joining Netscape in 1995 and staying near the end, being one of the last two or three employees. He said that Netscape was undone because upper management got extremely arrogant over their initial dominance in the browser market. They thought nobody, not even Microsoft could take them down.
He said they would laugh at feature requests by users, play foosball and drink beer all day...basically one big party while IE slowly and surely crushed them.
Based on this, I would be very wary that anyone associated with the original Netscape has the management skills to make a new browser a success.
Why, if they allowed Skype? Is it because of the free SMS feature?