Because nothing in your fucking post was accurate. Simply not worth responding to. You are either ignorant or a liar. You can pick both if you want to.
Actually, diabetics are more likely to go into shock due to lack of sugar than insulin. Every day I take the amount of insulin appropriate for my scheduled (or proposed) physical activity and diet. So if I get some unanticipated stress or physical activity I am in danger of making my insulin dose an overdose as my body will burn more sugar for fuel than expected. If I do not notice and immediately consume glucose (sugar) within seconds to minutes I will pass out and die unless rescued by someone with a syringe full of glucose and the knowledge of how to use it.
Given that,no, diabetics should probably not be in combat at all, and hence not in the military.
I am not convinced that is the case. Appleised Darwin on native hardware has a few features that most other machines don't. Just unplugging the thing resets the UEFI for just one thing.
Given Apples regular updates and generalised resistance, I feel I am not likely to get caught by a virus before Apples obliterates is infection mechanism with an update.
Either way is a gamble, with a Time Machine back up that is duplicated off line I feel reasonably safe.
There are no guarantees of safety, the Universe does not work that way.
I never disagreed with you on your technical claims of what can be done, only disputing your ridiculous claims, just like your latest that it's completely meaningless to the competent. Competent programmers tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's completely possible to the subset of competent familiar with Objective-C and the iOS API, but having to compile from source is a pain in the ass.
A competent programmer is prepared to learn something new to achieve his ends and that usually is the path of least resistance. If you are writing something new then you are likely to learn something new. One of the joys of programming.
I disagreed with on your abuse of terminology, which renders the term "walled garden" completely meaningless. 99% of the general population can't do it (something you don't disagree with me on), which means it's a walled garden. If I lost the argument, then name what you consider some actual walled gardens. If some other means of adding unapproved software is less trivial, it's not a valid argument. So, you can't name any console with homebrew without negating your own argument.
Ninety-nine per cent of the population (your number) probably cannot program. But pretty much anyone can follow a set of instructions. "Put this file in that place, start the IDE, select the file, compile and execute....
So it takes a programmer to write the app but pretty much anyone can compile and install it.
What would I consider a "walled garden"? Well some factors would be the unavailability of root (in the ecosystem not just a particular device), the inability to run self-signed code maybe other things, forbidding multiple operating systems... It is a bit open ended.
Basically, when someone has cracked something (which may require a programmer with appropriate knowledge) the crack can and will and does spread around. The fact that people "root" phones is evidence of this. How many owners of jailbroken phones, android or iPhone or anything else could actually write the jailbreak themselves? Why is one a "walled garden" and one not? Apple does not allow unapproved binary blobs. You know I always though that the open source movement did not like binary blobs either. They are proprietary by nature (even if free) and a massive security issue.
It is completely meaningless to the competent. Those who have not earned their chops have some difficulty. The rest of what you have to say is garbage. You have failed to counter my original statement because it is correct. I have refused to let you straw man me
You lost an argument, no big deal, but the way you are reacting to it is pathetic.
Nop-e, never was. Go back and read. You have failed in your argument (because it is false) and now you are retreating from the argument and making it about something else. Standard tactic - which didn't work either.
To write a program or app you need to be able to program? Why can you not get this through your head? It is inherent in the term. It is not a "made up" term. It is the reality. So, no, there is no real barrier. That is reality.
Well, I'm stepping out of my own head right now an looking at your own. Pretty unpleasant swamp you live in. Illogic, ad hominems, arguments from authority and you seem to think that trumps both definition and usage. Why don't you just claim I am 'false news'.
So, why criticise it's best features? If you want to write something the development kit does not permit then just don't use it. OS X still has all the normal Unix features. The "no shell access" is a strange one. Either you are using an IDE or not. If have an Integrated Development Environment and you need a shell then the IDE is broken (not integrated).
Nope. For any competent programmer it is no barrier at all. That is my point. However if YOU want to change the definition of a programmer to remove the required skills of compiling and linking. I am not inclined to agree with your personal redefinition of 'programmer'. Which is the bigger idiot?
It waa NEVER the case you needed to pay for the development kit. You do need to register to obtain it.
Even so, have people not heard of the command line and utilities to edit, compile and link?
It has aways been possible to distribute free software without jailbreaking via source code.
Errr.... since the first #! line indicates what shell is to be used to run the script there should be no problem as a default FreeBSD install comes with the requisite shells.
The factually correct statement that I made and that you are objecting to was "Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves". Nothing you have said makes that statement inaccurate. It wasn't about the general public or even the readers of slashdot just "those who can program for themselves". Go play with your own straw men please.
You want to play with logic you do not know how to use? Fine.
1. OS X does not have control over applications since you can compile your own or copy the (appropriate) binary from someone who has, including the Internet. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
2. OS X does not have control over all content, only DRM'd content. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
3. OS X does not have control over all media, only DRM'd media. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
4. OS X allows the user to authorise which applications may run not Apple. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
Therefore the definition that Wikipedia provides is in contradiction with the Wikipedia example. The article needs work
There is no way for you to win this argument because "Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves" has a truth value of one.
Now, granted, a lot of apps are little more than glorified websites in their scope, but if you want anything past significantly past that, you do need a much more diverse skill set.
Well that is a bit mealy mouthed, but thank you for the retraction and conceding the argument. Since you now agree with me I can consider this done.
Let us get this straight. You are now objecting to the fact that. actually, I don't know what you are objecting to. When there are still "Hakintoshes" out there and loads of Apple boxes running something other than OS X , what exactly are you bitching about.
And I am not 'bitching", I am not the one sledging a manufacturer and operating system out of what? "Join the party", "look how clever I am"...... Whatever it is vanity.
My first post said "Apple has no restrictions on source code. Just download the development kit and compile your own apps from source. Always been that way. Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves.". That happens to be absolutely correct. If you cannot compile link and debug then do not call yourself a competent programmer because you are not one as you do not have the abilities required to do the job. If you want to argue otherwise, well you have been trying to, but you have not given a case, have you? You just went "Blart!", and denigrated programmers.
This conversation is done. If you can come up with something rational gimme a ping. But you won't because you are wrong. A competent programmer should be able to compile and test their work. If they cannot they are not competent. End Of Signal.
My feeling is that it is six inches for anyone who knows the language they are using and that language is available in the development kit. A person off the street? They will not understand very much. But the audience here, well, I would not expect to many non-programmers here. SO, yes, I expect the audience to be able to compile and link and rapidly find out how to do so on any new system. That is why it is a six inch barrier. If you are competent to program, there is no real issue. The documentation is all there. And the 'playground' utility is useful to do all sorts of things.
There are lots of things I could bag Apple for but this walled garden thing is just shise and I get a bit sick of it. If you can use a computer rather than use applications there is no barrier. But, yes, it would be hard or impossible for people off the street.
I'm sorry, but I've spent years hearing people whine endlessly at the mere possibility of having to compile something on Linux, and you are now claiming that writing and compiling your own software is only a minor barrier
Actually, for a programmer, the recommended audience here, it should be no barrier at all. So that is why I said what I said. It is what it is.
My view might not be agreeable to many but it would be difficult for me to call someone who could not compile, link, run and test their code, a competent programmer.
Sorry for the awkward structure of the last sentence
It does when the objection lacks any form of proportion or even sanity really.
Whoever pointed out this "expensive inconvenience " is also blowing hot air. The post you actually replied to showed its falsity. The user made a counter factual statement. You are supporting that demonstrable falsity.
It would seem that you and the other think that having to obtain the use of a computer and the development environment should be free.
You lean to program and someone should give you a computer? sorry, I am not that communist. I'm only a socialist.
Slashdot Mirror
It is all available bar the UI
Because nothing in your fucking post was accurate. Simply not worth responding to. You are either ignorant or a liar. You can pick both if you want to.
In the UK the "holding facility" would likely be his home.
That is contrary to fact.
Ghostery
Actually, diabetics are more likely to go into shock due to lack of sugar than insulin. Every day I take the amount of insulin appropriate for my scheduled (or proposed) physical activity and diet. So if I get some unanticipated stress or physical activity I am in danger of making my insulin dose an overdose as my body will burn more sugar for fuel than expected. If I do not notice and immediately consume glucose (sugar) within seconds to minutes I will pass out and die unless rescued by someone with a syringe full of glucose and the knowledge of how to use it.
Given that,no, diabetics should probably not be in combat at all, and hence not in the military.
I am not convinced that is the case. Appleised Darwin on native hardware has a few features that most other machines don't. Just unplugging the thing resets the UEFI for just one thing.
Given Apples regular updates and generalised resistance, I feel I am not likely to get caught by a virus before Apples obliterates is infection mechanism with an update.
Either way is a gamble, with a Time Machine back up that is duplicated off line I feel reasonably safe.
There are no guarantees of safety, the Universe does not work that way.
There used to be a computer company called FruitFly, so named because they "ate apples for breakfast". They had their own Woz but no Jobs.
All this becomes moot when you receive a classified document from another country in your inbox
I never disagreed with you on your technical claims of what can be done, only disputing your ridiculous claims, just like your latest that it's completely meaningless to the competent. Competent programmers tend to prefer the path of least resistance. It's completely possible to the subset of competent familiar with Objective-C and the iOS API, but having to compile from source is a pain in the ass.
A competent programmer is prepared to learn something new to achieve his ends and that usually is the path of least resistance. If you are writing something new then you are likely to learn something new. One of the joys of programming.
I disagreed with on your abuse of terminology, which renders the term "walled garden" completely meaningless. 99% of the general population can't do it (something you don't disagree with me on), which means it's a walled garden. If I lost the argument, then name what you consider some actual walled gardens. If some other means of adding unapproved software is less trivial, it's not a valid argument. So, you can't name any console with homebrew without negating your own argument.
Ninety-nine per cent of the population (your number) probably cannot program. But pretty much anyone can follow a set of instructions. "Put this file in that place, start the IDE, select the file, compile and execute....
So it takes a programmer to write the app but pretty much anyone can compile and install it.
What would I consider a "walled garden"? Well some factors would be the unavailability of root (in the ecosystem not just a particular device), the inability to run self-signed code maybe other things, forbidding multiple operating systems... It is a bit open ended.
Basically, when someone has cracked something (which may require a programmer with appropriate knowledge) the crack can and will and does spread around. The fact that people "root" phones is evidence of this. How many owners of jailbroken phones, android or iPhone or anything else could actually write the jailbreak themselves? Why is one a "walled garden" and one not? Apple does not allow unapproved binary blobs. You know I always though that the open source movement did not like binary blobs either. They are proprietary by nature (even if free) and a massive security issue.
It is completely meaningless to the competent. Those who have not earned their chops have some difficulty. The rest of what you have to say is garbage. You have failed to counter my original statement because it is correct. I have refused to let you straw man me
You lost an argument, no big deal, but the way you are reacting to it is pathetic.
Nop-e, never was. Go back and read. You have failed in your argument (because it is false) and now you are retreating from the argument and making it about something else. Standard tactic - which didn't work either.
Dolt? Pot calling the kettle black.
To write a program or app you need to be able to program? Why can you not get this through your head? It is inherent in the term. It is not a "made up" term. It is the reality. So, no, there is no real barrier. That is reality.
Well, I'm stepping out of my own head right now an looking at your own. Pretty unpleasant swamp you live in. Illogic, ad hominems, arguments from authority and you seem to think that trumps both definition and usage. Why don't you just claim I am 'false news'.
So, why criticise it's best features? If you want to write something the development kit does not permit then just don't use it. OS X still has all the normal Unix features. The "no shell access" is a strange one. Either you are using an IDE or not. If have an Integrated Development Environment and you need a shell then the IDE is broken (not integrated).
You do realise you post is just bullshit don't you?
Do not make counterfactual statements. Many people call them lies.
Just distribute source code and be thankful apple won't let binary blobs from random strangers run.
You distribute source. Lots of people do. Go look at GitHub.
Nope. For any competent programmer it is no barrier at all. That is my point. However if YOU want to change the definition of a programmer to remove the required skills of compiling and linking. I am not inclined to agree with your personal redefinition of 'programmer'. Which is the bigger idiot?
It waa NEVER the case you needed to pay for the development kit. You do need to register to obtain it.
Even so, have people not heard of the command line and utilities to edit, compile and link?
It has aways been possible to distribute free software without jailbreaking via source code.
The 'walled garden' just keeps out the wankers.
Errr.... since the first #! line indicates what shell is to be used to run the script there should be no problem as a default FreeBSD install comes with the requisite shells.
The factually correct statement that I made and that you are objecting to was "Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves". Nothing you have said makes that statement inaccurate. It wasn't about the general public or even the readers of slashdot just "those who can program for themselves". Go play with your own straw men please.
You want to play with logic you do not know how to use? Fine.
1. OS X does not have control over applications since you can compile your own or copy the (appropriate) binary from someone who has, including the Internet. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
2. OS X does not have control over all content, only DRM'd content. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
3. OS X does not have control over all media, only DRM'd media. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
4. OS X allows the user to authorise which applications may run not Apple. Therefore the entire proposition fails.
Therefore the definition that Wikipedia provides is in contradiction with the Wikipedia example. The article needs work
There is no way for you to win this argument because "Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves" has a truth value of one.
Now, granted, a lot of apps are little more than glorified websites in their scope, but if you want anything past significantly past that, you do need a much more diverse skill set.
Well that is a bit mealy mouthed, but thank you for the retraction and conceding the argument. Since you now agree with me I can consider this done.
Let us get this straight. You are now objecting to the fact that. actually, I don't know what you are objecting to. When there are still "Hakintoshes" out there and loads of Apple boxes running something other than OS X , what exactly are you bitching about.
And I am not 'bitching", I am not the one sledging a manufacturer and operating system out of what? "Join the party", "look how clever I am"...... Whatever it is vanity.
My first post said "Apple has no restrictions on source code. Just download the development kit and compile your own apps from source. Always been that way. Apple is only a walled garden to people who cannot program for themselves.". That happens to be absolutely correct. If you cannot compile link and debug then do not call yourself a competent programmer because you are not one as you do not have the abilities required to do the job. If you want to argue otherwise, well you have been trying to, but you have not given a case, have you? You just went "Blart!", and denigrated programmers.
This conversation is done. If you can come up with something rational gimme a ping. But you won't because you are wrong. A competent programmer should be able to compile and test their work. If they cannot they are not competent. End Of Signal.
To install gentoo (never used it, I like BSD) you would still first have to obtain the use of an appropriate computer.
"add another repo" means what? What control is lacking? Could you explain to me how I am limited?
My feeling is that it is six inches for anyone who knows the language they are using and that language is available in the development kit. A person off the street? They will not understand very much. But the audience here, well, I would not expect to many non-programmers here. SO, yes, I expect the audience to be able to compile and link and rapidly find out how to do so on any new system. That is why it is a six inch barrier. If you are competent to program, there is no real issue. The documentation is all there. And the 'playground' utility is useful to do all sorts of things.
There are lots of things I could bag Apple for but this walled garden thing is just shise and I get a bit sick of it. If you can use a computer rather than use applications there is no barrier. But, yes, it would be hard or impossible for people off the street.
I'm sorry, but I've spent years hearing people whine endlessly at the mere possibility of having to compile something on Linux, and you are now claiming that writing and compiling your own software is only a minor barrier
Actually, for a programmer, the recommended audience here, it should be no barrier at all. So that is why I said what I said. It is what it is.
My view might not be agreeable to many but it would be difficult for me to call someone who could not compile, link, run and test their code, a competent programmer.
Sorry for the awkward structure of the last sentence
It does when the objection lacks any form of proportion or even sanity really.
Whoever pointed out this "expensive inconvenience " is also blowing hot air. The post you actually replied to showed its falsity. The user made a counter factual statement. You are supporting that demonstrable falsity.
It would seem that you and the other think that having to obtain the use of a computer and the development environment should be free.
You lean to program and someone should give you a computer? sorry, I am not that communist. I'm only a socialist.