No, those are the ones who are pre-ordering this junk.
While I agree that the new MacBook is not my cup of Kool-Aid, it is likely being marketed for three reasons:
1. To satisfy the market segment that now perceives the MacBook Air as "too big and heavy" (rolls eyes).
2. As a marketing test, to see if the public is really ready to give up terrestrial ports in favor of portablility.
3. Possibly as an answer to the Surface Pro 3 and the Lenovo Yogas of the world.
Personally, I would rather have seen an alternate Thunderbolt 2 connector (longer and thinner) with an included "hydra" cable (or "mini-dock" dongle) with a Mag-Safe Power connector, 2 USBs, a Full-Size TB, and a MiniDisplayPort. But that's just me...
I'm running 10.6.8 in a VMWare VM on my Retina MacBook Pro, and it's got great Rosetta performance.
What is the host OS version? I have a client that has some fairly expensive engineering software that he doesn't want/need to upgrade, plus he may even still run a PPC app or two, and so is stuck on 10.6.8; but generally, it would be great if he could upgrade to Mavericks or Yosemite. So does that work out pretty good for you?
Except Apple is not a watch brand, so they cannot expect to be able to charge what Rolex or Breitling can.
So you admit that the only reason that Rolex or Breitling can charge their ridiculous prices is "branding", eh?
Plus who wants a watch that has to be charged twice a day?
So, do you live on a planet with a 36-hour day, or are you a cyborg that requires no sleep? For the rest of us meatsacks, 24 - 18 = 6; and if you are like most humans on the planet earth, 6 hours sleep minimum is barely sustainable for more than a few days in a row.
[...] but IMHO it should be as functional as what he wishes to replace before we get it shoved down our throats.
On that, we wholeheartedly agree...
So, the real "fault" lies not with Poettering, per say; but rather, with the maintainers of those Distros who are letting this "loose cannon" run amok in the kernel.
Only by people like Lennart who have their own thing to promote. Systemd is a solution in search of a problem.
Upstart was all about getting laptops to start very quickly but hibernate renders that less relevant. Embedded systems and tablets can start very quickly without going anywhere near the bloated (for tiny systems) systemd.
As an Embedded Dev for nearly forty years, I'd wholeheartedly agree that the overhead of something like systemd or launchd is just silly. But having said that, iOS seems to include launchd, and no one seems to mind.
As far as systemd being a solution in search of a problem, the same could have been said of launchd and OS X. After all, *nix Systems, including three major revisions of OS X, had been doing stuff with a mashup of INIT, rc, inetd, cron and watchdogd for quite some time. So why did Apple spend the non-trivial time and resources to polish-up launchd, change EVERY daemon to use launchctl and launchd, and TEST, TEST, TEST? And then furthermore, Lennart and Poettring, et al, notwithstanding, why would Distro after Distro of Linux go to the same trouble (and generally, with only a small fraction of Apple's development budget and resources), especially with St. Linus (not surprisingly) apparently in disagreement with the whole systemd thing?
Is the Linux kernel Dev community really THAT Pusillanimous that one or two loose cannons can take over the majority of popular Distros? If true, then Linux is in sad shape indeed, and the end is nigh for it as a general-purpose platform.
So how is all that responsive to my question, to wit:
"Since it is very clear that change is a-comin', and it don't include INIT, then why not turn the ship away from the iceberg, and start a movement to replace systemd with launchd, because it is so much more mature, and even more capable, than systemd?"
Broken or no, INIT's days in Linux-Land are numbered. Deal with it. I'm just suggesting that you Linux guys get behind launchd instead of systemd, for the good of the "community".
Yeah, especially odd that the systemd folks didn't just adopt it. There'd be a LOT less to bitch about in the Linux "community" if they'd simply ported an already-stable daemon.
It would have been if they were simply developing an init system. However, systemd isn't one.
But launchd is much more than simply a replacement for INIT.
That's because it wasn't written by the guy responsible of inflicting pulseaudio and NetworkManager on people before they were ready for use. Systemd is his new thing, and it still needs a lot of polish before it can be compared with launchd.
Ok, I'll bite.
So, instead of getting all butthurt about the systemd "virus", why isn't there a movement among kernel-development-minded Linux Admins to change to launchd in lieu of systemd, for the very reasons you mentioned? After all, Apple thought that releasing launchd into the F/OSS "community" was a responsible thing to do. That act didn't cost Apple zero dollars, or require zero effort; so why not take advantage of a daemon that you, yourself have identified as superior?
Could it be that bitching about something is far easier than actually DOING something?
It is clear that, good or bad, INIT is being phased out by every, or nearly every major Linux distro. So why not move in the direction of "most stable" (launchd has been working essentially flawlessly in OS X for a DECADE) and "most well-developed" (based on your comparison of how much "polish" systemd will need before it could compare to launchd?)
Could it possibly be that the Linux "community" would rather suffer a decade's sputtering and insufficiently-tested systemd development than accept (yet another) gift from Apple?
Bullshit. All the svchost.exe processes you see are the exact same executable. There isn't a different svchost.exe for each process. Only the most naive AV imaginable would put any trust in the name of an executable anyway, let alone most AV apps. Giving malware the same executable name as common system processes is the oldest trick in the book. AV apps would be fucking useless if it were that easy to avoid detection. As far as made up bullshit goes, that's not even very creative. 0/10.
While I admit that my knowledge of the design of Windows AV Applications is limited, and my knowledge of the design of Windows viruses is even more limited (but maybe you have more experience in that regard, eh?); however, all I know is that I was asked to disinfect a friend's Windows XP machine a couple of years ago. He was already running Kapersky AV, and I subsequently tried AVG and Avast, and maybe one of two others.
ALL of them identified several pieces of malware under the name of svchost.exe, but NONE of them would do anything about it, for the very same reason: Bcause they had svchost.exe on some sort of internal "cannot delete" list.
So, I call Bullshit on your Bullshit, because that's the way it happened. I went around and around with this for nearly a week. The only way I eradicated this particular infection was the time-honored Windows Admin's friend: Wipe and Reload (which I REALLY wanted to avoid on this particular machine)
Then they open sourced it. And nobody decided to use it, even though it has been bulletproof for 10 years now.
Yeah, especially odd that the systemd folks didn't just adopt it. There'd be a LOT less to bitch about in the Linux "community" if they'd simply ported an already-stable daemon.
Not that that would have stopped the bitching, of course...
And all the people whining about how systemd is the ruination of all that is hole-y in Linux conveniently ignore, OS X switched over to launchd (from its previous use of init rc, IIRC) way back in the 10.4 (Tiger) days.
And guess what? Virtually no one noticed. The sky didn't fall. Legions of OS X admins didn't crawl out of their holes to proclaim that the switch to launchd (which, BTW, Apple created and Open-Sourced, thankyouverymuch) was the end of civilization as we know it, blah, blah, woof, woof.
Plus the joy of not being able to tell what process is using all the RAM/CPU because they're *all* called svchost.exe according to the task manager... except for the ones that are viruses, which are called scvhost.exe
...and because of that little fact, most AV apps won't delete a virus so-named.
No rendering engine is 100% with CSS3 and HTML5 and that's what they're all gearing towards so I don't really care if it's WebKIt, Blink, or Gecko.
Also, while a lot of browsers may use WebKit, they don't all neccesarily use the same version so you're in the boat of X being compatible with one browser, but not the other, anyway.
Also, I am a Web Dev.
So maybe you view all the various rendering issues as "Job Security"?
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad.
Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too
I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
I hate to Reply twice to the same message; but THIS illustrates my point:
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad.
Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too
I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
No, you missed my point:
My point was: Sometimes (and this is one, IMHO), "Monocultures" (especially when they involve the implementation of community-agreed-upon "standards" (like approved HTML versions)) are actually HELPFUL to those who Develop against those STANDARDS (and ultimately, to everyone who is "touched" by the implementation thereof.
In other words, I was saying that, since nearly all Browsers are WebKit-based at this point, wouldn't it make sense for any new Browsers (not JUST MS') to throw-in with WebKit (and possibly help improve it along the way!), so that there IS a "monoculture" in this one particular case.
I don't know about you, but if I were a Web Developer I would WANT a "monoculture" when it comes to HTML STANDARDS-Interpretation and Rendering.
For example, how would the internet even exist if various TCP/IP stacks returned different "endian" (or different-length) values in certain "header" fields? Isn't that just a different version of the "My Browser doesn't implement that Tag the same way as your Browser (or doesn't render it at all)" bullshit that drives Web Devs. CA-RAY-ZEE???
Exactly. Lets not go back to that. Last thing we want is a webkit monoculture.
Excuse me; but if you are NOT being sarcastic, isn't the exact problem that makes web development such a PITA, even today, the fact that there are multiple HTML parsers? And didn't the rise of the OPEN SOURCE WebKit at least reduce that to a dull roar (at least until Google had to throw their weight around with their express desire to unseat WebKit)?
So, I see this as yet another attempt by Microsoft to cause developers to have to code exceptions for multiple browsers, and knowing MS' still-largest marketshare, they are setting up another "Code for Spartan" situation like they enjoyed with IE 6.
While the rest of their goals SOUND laudable, MS shows that they are talking out both sides of their ass with their newest attempt to fork us, and web development... Yet again.
Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
And so, how does that apply to Apple as a PLAINTIFF?
Slashdot Mirror
First bitches
No, those are the ones who are pre-ordering this junk.
While I agree that the new MacBook is not my cup of Kool-Aid, it is likely being marketed for three reasons:
1. To satisfy the market segment that now perceives the MacBook Air as "too big and heavy" (rolls eyes).
2. As a marketing test, to see if the public is really ready to give up terrestrial ports in favor of portablility. 3. Possibly as an answer to the Surface Pro 3 and the Lenovo Yogas of the world.
Personally, I would rather have seen an alternate Thunderbolt 2 connector (longer and thinner) with an included "hydra" cable (or "mini-dock" dongle) with a Mag-Safe Power connector, 2 USBs, a Full-Size TB, and a MiniDisplayPort. But that's just me...
I'm running 10.6.8 in a VMWare VM on my Retina MacBook Pro, and it's got great Rosetta performance.
What is the host OS version? I have a client that has some fairly expensive engineering software that he doesn't want/need to upgrade, plus he may even still run a PPC app or two, and so is stuck on 10.6.8; but generally, it would be great if he could upgrade to Mavericks or Yosemite. So does that work out pretty good for you?
Except Apple is not a watch brand, so they cannot expect to be able to charge what Rolex or Breitling can.
So you admit that the only reason that Rolex or Breitling can charge their ridiculous prices is "branding", eh?
Plus who wants a watch that has to be charged twice a day?
So, do you live on a planet with a 36-hour day, or are you a cyborg that requires no sleep? For the rest of us meatsacks, 24 - 18 = 6; and if you are like most humans on the planet earth, 6 hours sleep minimum is barely sustainable for more than a few days in a row.
So, what was your point again, hater?
[...] but IMHO it should be as functional as what he wishes to replace before we get it shoved down our throats.
On that, we wholeheartedly agree...
So, the real "fault" lies not with Poettering, per say; but rather, with the maintainers of those Distros who are letting this "loose cannon" run amok in the kernel.
Only by people like Lennart who have their own thing to promote. Systemd is a solution in search of a problem. Upstart was all about getting laptops to start very quickly but hibernate renders that less relevant. Embedded systems and tablets can start very quickly without going anywhere near the bloated (for tiny systems) systemd.
As an Embedded Dev for nearly forty years, I'd wholeheartedly agree that the overhead of something like systemd or launchd is just silly. But having said that, iOS seems to include launchd, and no one seems to mind.
As far as systemd being a solution in search of a problem, the same could have been said of launchd and OS X. After all, *nix Systems, including three major revisions of OS X, had been doing stuff with a mashup of INIT, rc, inetd, cron and watchdogd for quite some time. So why did Apple spend the non-trivial time and resources to polish-up launchd, change EVERY daemon to use launchctl and launchd, and TEST, TEST, TEST? And then furthermore, Lennart and Poettring, et al, notwithstanding, why would Distro after Distro of Linux go to the same trouble (and generally, with only a small fraction of Apple's development budget and resources), especially with St. Linus (not surprisingly) apparently in disagreement with the whole systemd thing?
Is the Linux kernel Dev community really THAT Pusillanimous that one or two loose cannons can take over the majority of popular Distros? If true, then Linux is in sad shape indeed, and the end is nigh for it as a general-purpose platform.
Because the old system is not seen as broken.
Apparently, it, um, is, and curiously by the maintainers of nearly all of the major dirstos.
So you all keep chanting that tired refrain, while Distro after Distro falls victim to the ridiculousness that is systemd.
Maybe by the time you wake up, it won't be too late; but, with your obdurate attitude, I doubt it.
So how is all that responsive to my question, to wit: "Since it is very clear that change is a-comin', and it don't include INIT, then why not turn the ship away from the iceberg, and start a movement to replace systemd with launchd, because it is so much more mature, and even more capable, than systemd?"
Broken or no, INIT's days in Linux-Land are numbered. Deal with it. I'm just suggesting that you Linux guys get behind launchd instead of systemd, for the good of the "community".
Yeah, especially odd that the systemd folks didn't just adopt it. There'd be a LOT less to bitch about in the Linux "community" if they'd simply ported an already-stable daemon.
It would have been if they were simply developing an init system. However, systemd isn't one.
But launchd is much more than simply a replacement for INIT.
That's because it wasn't written by the guy responsible of inflicting pulseaudio and NetworkManager on people before they were ready for use. Systemd is his new thing, and it still needs a lot of polish before it can be compared with launchd.
Ok, I'll bite.
So, instead of getting all butthurt about the systemd "virus", why isn't there a movement among kernel-development-minded Linux Admins to change to launchd in lieu of systemd, for the very reasons you mentioned? After all, Apple thought that releasing launchd into the F/OSS "community" was a responsible thing to do. That act didn't cost Apple zero dollars, or require zero effort; so why not take advantage of a daemon that you, yourself have identified as superior?
Could it be that bitching about something is far easier than actually DOING something?
It is clear that, good or bad, INIT is being phased out by every, or nearly every major Linux distro. So why not move in the direction of "most stable" (launchd has been working essentially flawlessly in OS X for a DECADE) and "most well-developed" (based on your comparison of how much "polish" systemd will need before it could compare to launchd?)
Could it possibly be that the Linux "community" would rather suffer a decade's sputtering and insufficiently-tested systemd development than accept (yet another) gift from Apple?
Think carefully before you respond.
Bullshit. All the svchost.exe processes you see are the exact same executable. There isn't a different svchost.exe for each process. Only the most naive AV imaginable would put any trust in the name of an executable anyway, let alone most AV apps. Giving malware the same executable name as common system processes is the oldest trick in the book. AV apps would be fucking useless if it were that easy to avoid detection. As far as made up bullshit goes, that's not even very creative. 0/10.
While I admit that my knowledge of the design of Windows AV Applications is limited, and my knowledge of the design of Windows viruses is even more limited (but maybe you have more experience in that regard, eh?); however, all I know is that I was asked to disinfect a friend's Windows XP machine a couple of years ago. He was already running Kapersky AV, and I subsequently tried AVG and Avast, and maybe one of two others.
ALL of them identified several pieces of malware under the name of svchost.exe, but NONE of them would do anything about it, for the very same reason: Bcause they had svchost.exe on some sort of internal "cannot delete" list.
So, I call Bullshit on your Bullshit, because that's the way it happened. I went around and around with this for nearly a week. The only way I eradicated this particular infection was the time-honored Windows Admin's friend: Wipe and Reload (which I REALLY wanted to avoid on this particular machine)
The slashdot server should run a weekly cron that posts a new systemd-ish thread each week.
But, isn't cron one of the casualties of systemd?
I know that on OS X, launchd usurped cron, so I assumed that the same would be true of systemd...
Why do you think MacOS X is considered unusable for server purposes?
Damned desktop users.
Unfortunately, Saint Jobs never really believed in OS X Server; so it never got the development resources it needed to grow into a worthwhile product.
Kind of like Mssr. Cook seems to feel about the Mac Pro...
Then they open sourced it. And nobody decided to use it, even though it has been bulletproof for 10 years now.
Yeah, especially odd that the systemd folks didn't just adopt it. There'd be a LOT less to bitch about in the Linux "community" if they'd simply ported an already-stable daemon.
Not that that would have stopped the bitching, of course...
As I can recall, 10.4 was the first really good and stable OS X version.
I'd argue that that title goes to 10.3; but YMMV.
Yes, and in a lot of people's minds, 10.6 was the last, sigh...
OS X admins
Hahahaha!
Tell that to the MacCoLo Admins.
As an OS X user, you know it as launchd.
And all the people whining about how systemd is the ruination of all that is hole-y in Linux conveniently ignore, OS X switched over to launchd (from its previous use of init rc, IIRC) way back in the 10.4 (Tiger) days.
And guess what? Virtually no one noticed. The sky didn't fall. Legions of OS X admins didn't crawl out of their holes to proclaim that the switch to launchd (which, BTW, Apple created and Open-Sourced, thankyouverymuch) was the end of civilization as we know it, blah, blah, woof, woof.
Linux fans are SUCH luddites...
Plus the joy of not being able to tell what process is using all the RAM/CPU because they're *all* called svchost.exe according to the task manager... except for the ones that are viruses, which are called scvhost.exe
...and because of that little fact, most AV apps won't delete a virus so-named.
Isn't Windows wonderful?
No rendering engine is 100% with CSS3 and HTML5 and that's what they're all gearing towards so I don't really care if it's WebKIt, Blink, or Gecko. Also, while a lot of browsers may use WebKit, they don't all neccesarily use the same version so you're in the boat of X being compatible with one browser, but not the other, anyway. Also, I am a Web Dev.
So maybe you view all the various rendering issues as "Job Security"?
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad. Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
I hate to Reply twice to the same message; but THIS illustrates my point:
List of WebKit-Based Browsers (and other Applications)
Microsoft wants a monoculture (with Trident) and that's bad. Microsoft avoids a monoculture (by not using Webkit) and that's bad too I really pity the Spartan developers. To people like you, there is literally nothing they can do 'right'.
No, you missed my point:
My point was: Sometimes (and this is one, IMHO), "Monocultures" (especially when they involve the implementation of community-agreed-upon "standards" (like approved HTML versions)) are actually HELPFUL to those who Develop against those STANDARDS (and ultimately, to everyone who is "touched" by the implementation thereof.
In other words, I was saying that, since nearly all Browsers are WebKit-based at this point, wouldn't it make sense for any new Browsers (not JUST MS') to throw-in with WebKit (and possibly help improve it along the way!), so that there IS a "monoculture" in this one particular case.
I don't know about you, but if I were a Web Developer I would WANT a "monoculture" when it comes to HTML STANDARDS-Interpretation and Rendering.
For example, how would the internet even exist if various TCP/IP stacks returned different "endian" (or different-length) values in certain "header" fields? Isn't that just a different version of the "My Browser doesn't implement that Tag the same way as your Browser (or doesn't render it at all)" bullshit that drives Web Devs. CA-RAY-ZEE???
Exactly. Lets not go back to that. Last thing we want is a webkit monoculture.
Excuse me; but if you are NOT being sarcastic, isn't the exact problem that makes web development such a PITA, even today, the fact that there are multiple HTML parsers? And didn't the rise of the OPEN SOURCE WebKit at least reduce that to a dull roar (at least until Google had to throw their weight around with their express desire to unseat WebKit)?
So, I see this as yet another attempt by Microsoft to cause developers to have to code exceptions for multiple browsers, and knowing MS' still-largest marketshare, they are setting up another "Code for Spartan" situation like they enjoyed with IE 6.
While the rest of their goals SOUND laudable, MS shows that they are talking out both sides of their ass with their newest attempt to fork us, and web development... Yet again.
OK then, then lets use another term: Apple is patent system abuser, a patent bully, ...
...and Samsung is...?
Let us say that if your patent suit has the sole purpose of stopping legitimate competition in spite of the fact you are using patents in a trollish manner, and are being a patent troll. If you offer no services or products then all you are is a patent troll.
And so, how does that apply to Apple as a PLAINTIFF?
To be fair though Apple was doing it because Samsung was succeeding in the marketplace.
Not because a black squarish phone that you use fingers on the screen was something no one else could think of.
But isn't it funny that no one else did, until...?
Appealing to wikipedia for authority on a community-defined term? -1
It just happened to have the most complete definition, so STFU, COWARD.