All languages allow sloppy programming techniques. I have great faith in bad programmers to be able to be bad in any language. Some languages make it easier to write nicely structured code, but the resulting code will depend more on the programmer than the language.
Placing the ads on our machines directly is a bullshit move. How about we protect our fucking privacy by not having this shit on our machines in the first place.
More like, "From the Microsoft Marketing Department." Unless I'm missing something, this is just bundling "safe" adware as part of Windows. Hmm, maybe Ubuntu will have new life breathed into it.
No, this is just Microsoft's idea of a way to monetize the "free" Windows 10 Upgrade.
See, the problem is, when Microsoft gives away Windows 10 in a wan attempt to keep up with Apple doing the same for the past 2 (or is it 3?) Versions of OS X, they are directly hacking away at a primary revenue source. Apple, OTOH, has the cost of OS X factored-in to their overall sales of related hardware, and so it really isn't "felt" on the overall Balance Sheet.
So now, Microsoft is in the unenviable position of trying to figure out where to "make up" that revenue, especially since their sales are down in almost every sector overall, and so they are forced to resort to sleazy tactics like essentially turning Windows 10 into adware.
My prediction: Either they will be shamed into abandoning this despicable idea; or they will create a PAID "ransomware" tier for those who will pay $99 (or, knowing MS's burning desire for SaaS, more like $49/year) to "disable" the ads. Mark my words; you heard it here, first...
Not to start a Platform War; but this is something you will NEVER see Apple do. Not because they don't like making money; but because that simply isn't their business model (iAds notwithstanding). And besides, Apple is trying to distinguish themselves from virtually everyone else by making it very clear that they don't play the "Selling Personal Information By the Pound" (with apologies to Genesis) game.
Has this always been the case?? I was real interested in car audio back in the mid 90s (93-96). To my recollection, Alpine and Kenwood were the gold standard followed by JVC (digifine series), Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, and Blaupunkt. Obviously I'm way out of loop on this, so I'm glad you chimed in.
In your opinion, what brand of head units are worth looking into? Or, is it all cheap crap now?
Don't EVEN mention old Skool Kenwood, or even some Pioneer in the same breath as Alpine! I have no direct experience with Blaupunkt; but I have no specific reason to hate, or love, them.
But I will say this: In my brief experience as a repair tech for a company that got the repair work for all the local high-end audio shops (around half a dozen at that time) in our city, that a LOT of very-pricey audiophile products look like science-fair projects on the inside.
As far as today's high-end audio, whether home or mobile, I am so far out of it as to have no relevant opinion, sorry.
Actually, my knowledge of Alps Electronics comes from thumbing through their product catalogs and sampling their stuff in my decades as an embedded designer. I can't remember where I found out that Alps and Alpine were one and the same; but they are.
You could ask your boss, but you're probably under NDA.
For what? I write Windows apps for a living nowadays. Used to do embedded development for decades. Whole embedded Dev. World sucks ass now. Never have done Mac or iOS development professionally.
And again, like I asked (and was not answered) in the other thread in which you posted this screed yesterday:
Citation, please; or STFU, hater.
And no, a single blog quoting "multiple [unnamed] sources" doesn't count as a "citation". Nor does another article that quotes the blog that quotes "multiple sources". Someone has to actually stand up and say "Yes, I saw this, I heard this." Unnamed sources don't cut it. Especially when the Business Insider article you proffered seems to say that multiple entities from mulitple related angles (labels, artists, etc) are on the "No Free Streaming" bandwagon; but it is clear that "The Verge" is the one-and-only-source that is saying that Apple is actively pushing that agenda.
"We're going to the standards bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open industry standard." - Steve Jobs, WWDC 2010
But it never happened.
And, as has been explained many times in these pages, that was SJ talking out his ass, without clearing it with his legal team. Turns out that Facetime was using some decidedly NON Open Source CODECS (and maybe other stuff), and so there was NO WAY that Apple could "Open" Facetime in any meaningful way.
In fact, Apple was fined $368 million regarding Facetime, for violating 4 patents by patent troll VirnetX. So, even if Apple had tried to make Facetime an Industry Standard (which I fully believe was SJ's intent), VirnetX would simply have been waiting in the wings to sue anyone who tried to implement said standard.
I am not apologizing for Apple; them's the facts. So, can we finally stop this meme? Of course not; this is Slashdot, afterall.
RemObjects has developed an implementation of Swift in a product called "Silver" that, per their website, claims:
"With Silver, you can use Swift to write code directly against the.NET, Java, Android and Cocoa APIs. And you can also share a lot of non-UI code between platforms."
Their implementation isn't open source...but, the tool and their implementation are free.
Well, there's your proof that Apple doesn't intend to prosecute anyone regarding Swift.
If Apple isn't going to prosecute someone who reverse-engineered Swift BEFORE it was Open-Sourced, then they sure as HELL aren't going to go after anyone AFTER they release it as Open Source.
It will be open source to the point where someone tries to use it in competition with Apple. At which point, the lawyers will come in and kill the project with cease and desist letters regarding APIs, copyrighted names, etc.
Oh, come off it!
If Apple Open Sources the Language, then they wouldn't last past the first Motion To Dismiss in Court. As long as the usage doesn't violate the terms of the whatever Open Source License Apple releases Swift 2 under, then they have no actionable claims, period.
And of course, the "competitor" can clearly see the terms of the License LONG before that would be an issue.
Not to mention the credibility Apple would lose in the entire F/OSS Community if they tried that kind of bait-and-switch tactic.
So when I politely explain that I've been using microphones and talking with "team members" since the late 1990's, and even had web cams in the days where you stuck them on top of your CRT based monitor! Oh, and it was all for free. To which the look of puzzlement and surprise went across their face. Because in their mind, and that of so many of the public, Apple brings these things to the world, and not just their own flavour of it.
That skips a whole bunch of tears on the part of most of the people who tried to get that actually working back then.
What Apple did with Facetime was make all that drop-dead-simple; so that Everyperson(tm) could make it happen without having to traverse a nightmare of setup.
So, your condescending "polite explanation" was nothing more than the thinly-veiled conceit of the "Computer Priesthood"; which neatly ignored the accomplishments of some pretty-damned-hardworking Developers at Apple, who made the whole "videoconferencing" process be Zeroconf and utterly Drop-Dead-Simple. And even better, they did it in a bandwidth that even greedy AT&T agreed to COMPLETELY IGNORE for data-usage-purposes.
If you think that isn't a notable accomplishment, then try it yourself. And no, getting it working in one specific instance after a week's worth of fiddling, like you were "explaining", doesn't count.
That should be news to Mssrs. K & R. Didn't they work for Bell Labs at the time, and wasn't C simply supposed to be an internal language for the development of "The Phone Company" system-code?
Swift is a company language, and people will perceive it that way for a long time. Even if it finally jumps over the fence of Apple's walled garden, it will be only incidentally done. Look at Lua, originally a company language for PetroBras. It never became mainstream.
5-10 years of stagnation. Hurrah! Time to refine designs, sort out that crufty code you've been meaning to fix for 10 years, deal with 10-year-old feature requests and sort out interoperability, [...]
Not to change the subject; but that's EXACTLY why I was so happy to NOT see an endless parade of "new technologies" and "4,000 new APIs" in yesterday's OS X and iOS Keynote presentations. Ya gotta show off something new; but I think that Apple has "gotten" the idea, at least internally, that they can/should take a pause and firm-up what is there, before starting any new paradigm-changing/life-changing feature-sets. That is why, IMHO, you see them talking about better performance, overall. They are internally running-around and addressing a zillion little (and sometimes big!) issues and bug-reports, instead of creating new framework after new framework...
A lesson that Microsoft SORELY needs to learn; but just never seems to.
If you enjoy 1970's technology, try translating BASIC games into Python. That's an exercise in unraveling spaghetti code, chasing GOTO statements, and figuring out what parts of the code was to get around hardware limitations.
You CAN write nicely structure, well-documented code in almost any language, including BASIC and Assembly. I know, I've done it many, many times. It is simply that some languages ALLOW sloppy programming techniques, and that some developers write sloppy, undocumented code.
Yes a programming language specifically designed like a walled garden or more like a labor camp.
Only an insensitive dickhead like you, with no idea of what a real "labor camp" is would make such a ridiculous analogy.
Go read some history before you throw around the term "labor camp". It is deeply insulting to those who had family members who actually lived (and usually died) in labor camps.
Chris Lattner started the LLVM project (basis for clang) before joining Apple. He was asking them a lot of questions in relation to his attempts to implement objective-c on it. Obviously Apple thought what he was doing was a great idea and hired him. I have no doubt that this was always in the plans since when quizzed about whether Swift would be open sourced they would not commit but always sounded open to the idea (i.e. they would not announce it until they were actually ready).
Apple supported the development of clang (and LLVM) precisely because Apple realized it was too much work to elevate the GNU toolchain above its longstanding (and continuing) mediocre status.
It is nothing but good for the F/OSS community that Apple decided to continue the F/OSS status of LLVM and clang, and every single F/OSS Developer should be genuflecting on a daily basis to Chris Lattner and Apple for doing so.
Given the general attitude of Apple (and its outright hostility towards the more "ideological" [1] flavours of Free Software [2], I must conclude this is just a strategical move, to regain control of some "markets" which now are more oriented towards Free.
If it pans out for Apple, it'll end up weakening the now strong and diverse Free Software movement, which in my book is a Very Bad Thing.
I distrust that bunch deeply. Take LLVM: the project itself is good, and makes us all richer, but the motives of Apple to stand behind it not so much.
I'd be glad to be convinced otherwise.
[1] let me label them so: IMHO all are ideological, just some hide behind "technical" which is ideology in disguise.
[2] cf. Apple not distributing the Gnu tools since they went GPLV3, to the detriment of their users, who are stuck with an old bash, an old Emacs and so on. Nothing in the GPLV3 prevents them from distributing that stuff. It's just sick corporate powerplay.
GPLv3 is shit. It is outright hostile to those who wish to redistribute or include products under that license. I have seen that very topic bandied-about several times right here on these pages. How dare you impute a sinister motive to that which large segments of the F/OSS Community also has a problem?
Just because Apple has some differences from your world-view does not make them the Axis of Evil, as you are implying. In fact, in response to concerns from the Community, Apple long-ago changed their own APSL to make it more "Community-Friendly".
Now if you want to find a company that is anathema to all-that-is-holy, look no farther than Oracle; who has, single-handedly, and unabashedly, usurped and crippled many important F/OSS Projects.
Slashdot Mirror
All languages allow sloppy programming techniques. I have great faith in bad programmers to be able to be bad in any language. Some languages make it easier to write nicely structured code, but the resulting code will depend more on the programmer than the language.
Exactly!
Placing the ads on our machines directly is a bullshit move. How about we protect our fucking privacy by not having this shit on our machines in the first place.
I agree! Here's how to start.
Class action.
I hope it's in the billions.
Why? The only ones who ever see the awards are the defense attorneys.
More like, "From the Microsoft Marketing Department." Unless I'm missing something, this is just bundling "safe" adware as part of Windows. Hmm, maybe Ubuntu will have new life breathed into it.
No, this is just Microsoft's idea of a way to monetize the "free" Windows 10 Upgrade.
See, the problem is, when Microsoft gives away Windows 10 in a wan attempt to keep up with Apple doing the same for the past 2 (or is it 3?) Versions of OS X, they are directly hacking away at a primary revenue source. Apple, OTOH, has the cost of OS X factored-in to their overall sales of related hardware, and so it really isn't "felt" on the overall Balance Sheet.
So now, Microsoft is in the unenviable position of trying to figure out where to "make up" that revenue, especially since their sales are down in almost every sector overall, and so they are forced to resort to sleazy tactics like essentially turning Windows 10 into adware.
My prediction: Either they will be shamed into abandoning this despicable idea; or they will create a PAID "ransomware" tier for those who will pay $99 (or, knowing MS's burning desire for SaaS, more like $49/year) to "disable" the ads. Mark my words; you heard it here, first...
Not to start a Platform War; but this is something you will NEVER see Apple do. Not because they don't like making money; but because that simply isn't their business model (iAds notwithstanding). And besides, Apple is trying to distinguish themselves from virtually everyone else by making it very clear that they don't play the "Selling Personal Information By the Pound" (with apologies to Genesis) game.
Has this always been the case?? I was real interested in car audio back in the mid 90s (93-96). To my recollection, Alpine and Kenwood were the gold standard followed by JVC (digifine series), Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, and Blaupunkt. Obviously I'm way out of loop on this, so I'm glad you chimed in.
In your opinion, what brand of head units are worth looking into? Or, is it all cheap crap now?
Don't EVEN mention old Skool Kenwood, or even some Pioneer in the same breath as Alpine! I have no direct experience with Blaupunkt; but I have no specific reason to hate, or love, them.
But I will say this: In my brief experience as a repair tech for a company that got the repair work for all the local high-end audio shops (around half a dozen at that time) in our city, that a LOT of very-pricey audiophile products look like science-fair projects on the inside.
As far as today's high-end audio, whether home or mobile, I am so far out of it as to have no relevant opinion, sorry.
Actually, my knowledge of Alps Electronics comes from thumbing through their product catalogs and sampling their stuff in my decades as an embedded designer. I can't remember where I found out that Alps and Alpine were one and the same; but they are.
You could ask your boss, but you're probably under NDA.
For what? I write Windows apps for a living nowadays. Used to do embedded development for decades. Whole embedded Dev. World sucks ass now. Never have done Mac or iOS development professionally.
Then, if all that you are saying is true, then I need to just bow out of this particular part of the discussion.
I'm an embedded designer of mainly industrial controls. Good graphics performance is rarely a design criteria in my Projects...
Thanks for the edjumication.
Apple wants all the big music publishers to cease allowing any free streaming of music. Apple pushing music labels to kill free Spotify streaming ahead of Beats relaunch Why Apple wants to end the era of free music streaming
And again, like I asked (and was not answered) in the other thread in which you posted this screed yesterday:
Citation, please; or STFU, hater.
And no, a single blog quoting "multiple [unnamed] sources" doesn't count as a "citation". Nor does another article that quotes the blog that quotes "multiple sources". Someone has to actually stand up and say "Yes, I saw this, I heard this." Unnamed sources don't cut it. Especially when the Business Insider article you proffered seems to say that multiple entities from mulitple related angles (labels, artists, etc) are on the "No Free Streaming" bandwagon; but it is clear that "The Verge" is the one-and-only-source that is saying that Apple is actively pushing that agenda.
who were the owners of bell labs ?
Um, AT&T, which had been a publicly-held company for many decades before the first commercially-available computer was even sold.
"We're going to the standards bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open industry standard." - Steve Jobs, WWDC 2010
But it never happened.
And, as has been explained many times in these pages, that was SJ talking out his ass, without clearing it with his legal team. Turns out that Facetime was using some decidedly NON Open Source CODECS (and maybe other stuff), and so there was NO WAY that Apple could "Open" Facetime in any meaningful way.
In fact, Apple was fined $368 million regarding Facetime, for violating 4 patents by patent troll VirnetX. So, even if Apple had tried to make Facetime an Industry Standard (which I fully believe was SJ's intent), VirnetX would simply have been waiting in the wings to sue anyone who tried to implement said standard.
I am not apologizing for Apple; them's the facts. So, can we finally stop this meme? Of course not; this is Slashdot, afterall.
Well most creatives for a start.
Not to mention a significant number of Linux Devs, too.
Who would ever buy a Mac then? Apple's not going to further jeopardize the Mac platform that way.
Just just a sarcastic little hater, aren't you?
Begone from this thread, if all you have to contribute is hate.
Seriously.
http://elementscompiler.com/el...
RemObjects has developed an implementation of Swift in a product called "Silver" that, per their website, claims:
"With Silver, you can use Swift to write code directly against the .NET, Java, Android and Cocoa APIs. And you can also share a lot of non-UI code between platforms."
Their implementation isn't open source...but, the tool and their implementation are free.
Well, there's your proof that Apple doesn't intend to prosecute anyone regarding Swift.
If Apple isn't going to prosecute someone who reverse-engineered Swift BEFORE it was Open-Sourced, then they sure as HELL aren't going to go after anyone AFTER they release it as Open Source.
Amirite?
It will be open source to the point where someone tries to use it in competition with Apple. At which point, the lawyers will come in and kill the project with cease and desist letters regarding APIs, copyrighted names, etc.
Oh, come off it!
If Apple Open Sources the Language, then they wouldn't last past the first Motion To Dismiss in Court. As long as the usage doesn't violate the terms of the whatever Open Source License Apple releases Swift 2 under, then they have no actionable claims, period.
And of course, the "competitor" can clearly see the terms of the License LONG before that would be an issue.
Not to mention the credibility Apple would lose in the entire F/OSS Community if they tried that kind of bait-and-switch tactic.
So when I politely explain that I've been using microphones and talking with "team members" since the late 1990's, and even had web cams in the days where you stuck them on top of your CRT based monitor! Oh, and it was all for free. To which the look of puzzlement and surprise went across their face. Because in their mind, and that of so many of the public, Apple brings these things to the world, and not just their own flavour of it.
That skips a whole bunch of tears on the part of most of the people who tried to get that actually working back then.
What Apple did with Facetime was make all that drop-dead-simple; so that Everyperson(tm) could make it happen without having to traverse a nightmare of setup.
So, your condescending "polite explanation" was nothing more than the thinly-veiled conceit of the "Computer Priesthood"; which neatly ignored the accomplishments of some pretty-damned-hardworking Developers at Apple, who made the whole "videoconferencing" process be Zeroconf and utterly Drop-Dead-Simple. And even better, they did it in a bandwidth that even greedy AT&T agreed to COMPLETELY IGNORE for data-usage-purposes.
If you think that isn't a notable accomplishment, then try it yourself. And no, getting it working in one specific instance after a week's worth of fiddling, like you were "explaining", doesn't count.
+ created by USG.
That should be news to Mssrs. K & R. Didn't they work for Bell Labs at the time, and wasn't C simply supposed to be an internal language for the development of "The Phone Company" system-code?
Swift is a company language, and people will perceive it that way for a long time. Even if it finally jumps over the fence of Apple's walled garden, it will be only incidentally done. Look at Lua, originally a company language for PetroBras. It never became mainstream.
And exactly whose fault was that?
The real value of Swift will be whether it can realistically be used anywhere but Apple's walled garden.
This could by answered with an emphatic "no".
Amazing that you can be so sure of that; considering that the Open Source version of Swift is still months away.
Or did you get your hands on the Beta of WatchOS 2 and travel to the future to check it out?
5-10 years of stagnation. Hurrah! Time to refine designs, sort out that crufty code you've been meaning to fix for 10 years, deal with 10-year-old feature requests and sort out interoperability, [...]
Not to change the subject; but that's EXACTLY why I was so happy to NOT see an endless parade of "new technologies" and "4,000 new APIs" in yesterday's OS X and iOS Keynote presentations. Ya gotta show off something new; but I think that Apple has "gotten" the idea, at least internally, that they can/should take a pause and firm-up what is there, before starting any new paradigm-changing/life-changing feature-sets. That is why, IMHO, you see them talking about better performance, overall. They are internally running-around and addressing a zillion little (and sometimes big!) issues and bug-reports, instead of creating new framework after new framework...
A lesson that Microsoft SORELY needs to learn; but just never seems to.
If you enjoy 1970's technology, try translating BASIC games into Python. That's an exercise in unraveling spaghetti code, chasing GOTO statements, and figuring out what parts of the code was to get around hardware limitations.
You CAN write nicely structure, well-documented code in almost any language, including BASIC and Assembly. I know, I've done it many, many times. It is simply that some languages ALLOW sloppy programming techniques, and that some developers write sloppy, undocumented code.
Don't blame the language; blame the developer.
Yes a programming language specifically designed like a walled garden or more like a labor camp.
Only an insensitive dickhead like you, with no idea of what a real "labor camp" is would make such a ridiculous analogy.
Go read some history before you throw around the term "labor camp". It is deeply insulting to those who had family members who actually lived (and usually died) in labor camps.
That's a good point....lack of libraries are one of the major things that stopped objective-C adoption as well.
well, that and the fact that it's shit.
Compared to what, exactly? C++ ???
Chris Lattner started the LLVM project (basis for clang) before joining Apple. He was asking them a lot of questions in relation to his attempts to implement objective-c on it. Obviously Apple thought what he was doing was a great idea and hired him. I have no doubt that this was always in the plans since when quizzed about whether Swift would be open sourced they would not commit but always sounded open to the idea (i.e. they would not announce it until they were actually ready).
Apple supported the development of clang (and LLVM) precisely because Apple realized it was too much work to elevate the GNU toolchain above its longstanding (and continuing) mediocre status.
It is nothing but good for the F/OSS community that Apple decided to continue the F/OSS status of LLVM and clang, and every single F/OSS Developer should be genuflecting on a daily basis to Chris Lattner and Apple for doing so.
I think it's not.
Given the general attitude of Apple (and its outright hostility towards the more "ideological" [1] flavours of Free Software [2], I must conclude this is just a strategical move, to regain control of some "markets" which now are more oriented towards Free.
If it pans out for Apple, it'll end up weakening the now strong and diverse Free Software movement, which in my book is a Very Bad Thing.
I distrust that bunch deeply. Take LLVM: the project itself is good, and makes us all richer, but the motives of Apple to stand behind it not so much.
I'd be glad to be convinced otherwise.
[1] let me label them so: IMHO all are ideological, just some hide behind "technical" which is ideology in disguise.
[2] cf. Apple not distributing the Gnu tools since they went GPLV3, to the detriment of their users, who are stuck with an old bash, an old Emacs and so on. Nothing in the GPLV3 prevents them from distributing that stuff. It's just sick corporate powerplay.
GPLv3 is shit. It is outright hostile to those who wish to redistribute or include products under that license. I have seen that very topic bandied-about several times right here on these pages. How dare you impute a sinister motive to that which large segments of the F/OSS Community also has a problem?
Just because Apple has some differences from your world-view does not make them the Axis of Evil, as you are implying. In fact, in response to concerns from the Community, Apple long-ago changed their own APSL to make it more "Community-Friendly".
Now if you want to find a company that is anathema to all-that-is-holy, look no farther than Oracle; who has, single-handedly, and unabashedly, usurped and crippled many important F/OSS Projects.