"I would expect a developer to consider iOS first just because it's more likely to show a return."
Damn straight, sounds like Android users have been conditioned to believe that 99c is far too much to reward developers for their work. Damn cheapskates, buy a phone worth hundreds and expect all their extra games and apps to be free.
I was just about to post something similar.
Considering the fact that probably 95% of the Apps on the iOS App Store are under $10, there is absolutely zero excuse for pirating.
But some people just think the world owes them something.
Actually, this statistic matters only to Apple, Samsung, and their ilk. WHat matters to users is unit sales, because those are the least-bad indicator of how healthy an ecosystem is, and how much developper/content owner attention it will attract.
You're both wrong.
To developers (remember them?); what matters is Number_of_Users * (Avg._Dollars_Spent_on_Software_per_User)
And guess who wins on that metric?
Hint: It's the same platform that has the most developers developing for it, despite the fact that developing for it requires (as some slashdotters can't get past) that you have certain hardware, and have to pay a "whopping" $99/year for a developer license.
Probably because it's another cherry-picked statistic to support the previously-determined answer they want. Who cares about "projects started" as a metric? How many of those projects are going to even be completed? The reason they picked such a meaningless metric is because it supported the view they wanted to present.
To what end? Why should they care who "wins"? Time to wrap some copper foil on your hat; the tinfoil isn't blocking enough of the mind-control waves...
I wish/. would stop with these stories.
I'm sure you do. The truth hurts...
I think it's obvious by now that both Android and iOS are feasible mobile platforms, we don't need fanboys from either side posting their stat-of-the-day that demonstrates that their choice is the best.
But yet, there you are, bashing on the messenger; which I'll bet you would NOT have done if the statistics had been the other way.
Fucking hypocrite.
BTW, in the interests of full disclosure, I love my Nexus S and tend to be "on Google's side".
Apparently Android has successfully captured the something-for-free (as in beer) crowd while iOS has got the developers.
Exactly. That's why Android is so popular on/. Because, underneath all the "Software wants to be free" (as in Freedom) bullshit, 95% of the F/OSS supporters are simply lazy-ass slackers, that just want to leach off of someone else's hard work, and don't contribute one line of code, nor one dime, to ANY F/OSS project. Otherwise, why would so many F/OSS projects die on the vine due to lack of participation and/or funding? I'm not talking about the big, well-known ones; but the thousands of projects that haven't seen an update in years, or have simply disappeared altogether.
There are certainly F/OSS purists, like RMS; but you'll notice that when His name is mentioned around here; it is almost always in a derisive manner (e.g., check out the comments to this recent article. I don't even care about RMS, or even particularly about F/OSS, and I was appalled and frankly embarrassed at the negativity toward the father of GNU). So, when someone comes along, like RMS, who certainly CAN afford any software and hardware; but STILL chooses ONLY F/OSS solutions, he's labelled "extreme". But yet, on these pages, those same F/OSS posers come out in droves to spew the Apple Hate; whining about "Walled Gardens" and "I OWN my hardware!", and "Apple should die for being closed!".
So, as you said, paraphrasing: "Android is for cheapskates and slackers; iOS is for people that understand that the quality of things matters, and that, by and large, you get what you pay for, and that's what attracts (most) DEVELOPERS."
Now busily start your ad hominem (based on my username) and strawman attacks; because that's all you have...
Linux works best when users don't know it's linux. Once you put it in front of consumers you're asking for trouble.
Linux works best when you don't expect your computer to be nothing more than a glorified TV/typewriter. The single most important feature of Linux is that it gives you power to solve complicated problems by combining very simple tools. You don't have to rely on somebody else to solve everything for you like on Windows or Mac.
Hmmm. There are FREE (and SUPPORTED!) tools for doing anything your peabrain can dream up on OS X.
My aunt bought a new mac a week ago and was furious. She used Photoshop CS 4 and a few other Adobe products that were not even compatible in Lion! These were $700 packages too! She bought them in 2008 and were only 3.5 years old.
That is crazy and she was so angry she almost returned them and went with a PC as the new CS 6 ones would be compatible for 10+ years as long as Windows 7 keeps running until 2020 etc.
So, let me get this straight:
1. Apple has to hold back their OS development to suit a software vendor?
2. It is Apple's fault, not Adobe's, that software sometimes requires a paid upgrade?
3. It is Apple's fault, no Adobe's, that Adobe wrings every single dime out of CS that it can, every chance it gets?
4. That even though Win 7 might be "supported" for 10 years, that is absolutely NO guarantee that a "Security Patch" or "Service Pack" won't require a Paid Upgrade? Ask any Windows person about having to do JUST THAT.
5. Your Aunt would rather RE PURCHASE CS AND A NEW COMPUTER (AND have to deal with the security nightmare and non-ending bullshit that is Windows) than simply look around for a good deal on CS for Mac???
Today people just wont leave that POS XP. Yes, XP was a great version of Windows in its day in 2001 though had issues. Today it is terrible but it still is running and most IT departments and people on a budget plan to keep running it until 2014. It just works and wont die. Flashback was another issue I became mad at for Apple (even though I am not a mac user). The reason was is that Java was patched with recent versions of MacOSX but Apple left them out in the cold. no updates and of course these users say they do not run anti virus software with a smile.
That is borderline negligent. MS still updates XP for security even if they no longer do active development with it nor port modern browsers to the dying platform anymore.
Ahem. Apple actually "broke" their own OS-updating policy recently to issue a removal tool for the Flashback Java vulnerability, and an update that disables unsafe versions of Flash Player back to OS X 10.5 (Leopard), which is TWO revs back (and for both PPC and Intel, too). That is roughly equivalent to MS offering an security update for Windows ME (since Vista doesn't really count as a "rev"; but rather just as a bad joke that was ONLY released when it was to keep MS from defaulting on a zillion VLA contracts).
It used to be the case that longevity was a big selling point for Macs. Now it's actually the opposite, thanks to Apple's increasingly aggressive forced obsolescence policies. My 2007 Macbook, for instance, will not run Mountain Lion. Only five years of OS updates is pretty insane, IMHO. Remember when you could run System 7.5.5 (released late 1996) on a Mac Plus (released early 1986)?
Even if I were willing to run Lion forever, Apple typically only releases security updates for OSX one major version back. I refuse to run an internet-connected computer on an OS that doesn't get any security updates, so it's the end of the line whenever 10.9 is released, likely in 2013 or 2014.
This Macbook is my sixth Mac -- I've been using them since pretty much the day Commodore went under. But at this point I honestly wouldn't even consider replacing it with another Mac.
Since you said "Macbook" (and not Macbook PRO), I assume that yours is the bottom-of-the-line model that came with a CoreDuo (not Core2Duo) CPU. If that is the case, then the reason you got dropped off the upgrade chain is simple: Your CPU does not run 64-bit code. I'm not an Apple dev.; but I'm pretty sure that Mountain Lion represents Apple's move to a "64-bit clean" architecture. This is overall a good thing. You just got caught out by an architecture-shift. Happens.
And just because Apple doesn't regularly issue updates back more than one "major version" or OS X, doesn't mean it NEVER does. In fact, I believe that Apple just released a security update for OS X 10.5 about a week or so ago.
There are a gajillion Windows PCs in service right now that can't be upgraded past XP. So what? The G5 tower I purchased about a MONTH before the Intel-Switch was announced can't be upgraded past OS X 10.5 Leopard. But ya know what? That G5 tower just happens to be my main computer, and is the one I am typing this post on.
So, by the same token, the Windows PC world should be chastised for putting out machines that can't be upgraded past their ORIGINAL OS (let alone a couple of major revs forward!)? And that some of those laptops were purchased within a year of XP no longer being loaded by OEMs? And how about all those Windows machines that were NEVER capable of running some of the VERSIONS of the SAME OS? At a former employer, they purchased an HP laptop for a salesperson that couldn't even LOAD XP Pro, and therefore couldn't log on to our Domain. That's what I call INSTANT obsolescence!!!
The problem stems mostly from the fact that Apple is holding on to the "10" part of the OS X name for too long; making people think that each major revision of OS X is "just a simple upgrade"; when there are deeply-rooted (no pun) changes happening under the hood.
You are essentially whining that your Windows XP laptop won't run Windows 7. Do you really think that will cease if you "jump ship" away from OS X???
LOL, you actually think that Apple build quality is better than what you get when you buy a Thinkpad? Seriously? What you're paying for is a lot of branding bullshit and if you're lucky some hardware.
There's many companies you can buy PC products from and if you don't like how one vendor handles things you can just buy from a different one.
Yes. Apple's build quality (especially the case) is obviously better than creaky, brittle plastic cases. And you are simply delusional if you disagree. Period.
So, your suggestion would be to spend MORE than a MacBook Pro on an SUCCESSION of sucky laptops, rather than just spending just slightly more (debatably) on an Apple laptop?
Windows just works on the desktop but some php and other code is only available or works much better on Linux unfortunately.
Then MacOS should be objectively the best OS, as it has good desktop and usable command line. I dunno. I've never had a Mac, but I've been thinking about it.
I will get flamed for my username (as usual on/. ); but you have objectively come to the correct conclusion. It's just a shame that so many on Slashdot cannot separate zealotry from facts.
I bought a MacBook largely for the same reasons. I needed what it offered and Linux couldn't compete without having to spend more time learning this and that or hunting for crappy software that it wasn't worth it. I'm with you on just not caring about the license anymore. Even Linus Torvalds finds some open source licenses way too much. GPLv3 is way too off the hook and most developers are now choosing other licenses like MIT, Apache, and even BSD. The BSD license is my personal favorite.
And even better, if there is something in Linux he likes, he can run that in a VM.
Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side
Windows may suck for a long list of reasons, but for some odd reason, will millions of brilliant nerds working for a goal, more shit gets screwed up on OSS systems, more frequently. Personally I went from a windows only mindset in the mid to late 90's to a linux only mindset in the 2000's, just to end up dreading having to boot linux in the 2010's
And now, it's time to try OS X...
BTW, my Win 7 work laptop regularly has screen-redraw issues. Just last week, it left a hunk of a dragged-window laying around on top of another application's window area until I closed and reopened the "defiled" application (which happened to be Outlook, BTW). It REGULARLY leaves temporary "window-drag-trails".
But, I've NEVER seen OS X do that. In fact, I've only seen it "freeze" the cursor for a second or two (the worst "screen update" issue I've seen using OS X), and that only about four or five times in a decade of use. I've never seen it doing what you describe, or even anything remotely close.
It's probably a good idea to check with a lawyer if there is a legally required support duration and what is covered under it. In this case, he should be happy if there is, because then he tells the client that he'll provide support as legally required and any additional support would have to be negotiated. Don't leave the client hanging if he needs support now and is willing to negotiate a support contract. Be prepared to write off that support in case no contract materializes though and be firm if the client tries to drag this out.
Although I certainly agree that a consult with a lawyer is a good idea, just to make sure their isn't a support period required by statute or caselaw, I completely reject the idea that a contract that is "silent" on the issue of support automatically transmogrifies into a tacit agreement by you to support your "work for hire" indefinitely.
Think about it; the client signed that contract, too! The onus was ACTUALLY on the OTHER party to make sure that "support" was covered; otherwise, I contend that your duty to support (if there was any, and absent any specific statutory/caselaw provisions) ENDED when the client put the software into his "live" system, and started to use it on a regular basis.
Even if you didn't put a "merchantability or fitness of purpose" disclaimer into your contract, every single day he uses your software without complaint is further evidence in your favor against any "nonperformance" claim he might have.
Remember, courts are bound by the four-corners of the contract, as extended and modified by statute/caselaw.
But THAT IS ALL! If "Support" isn't mentioned in the contract (and there isn't a statute/case decision to the contrary), then your support term is ZERO.
That's why "Lifetime Guarantees" are ALWAYS in WRITING.
A Court would NEVER "infer" that there was a "meeting of the minds" that you agreed to support your work forever! That would be like you CONTRACTING a WORK FOR HIRE to paint your house, then expecting the contractor to come back and touch up any chips or defects forever. Even if you discovered the contractor missed an entire wall in his painting, if you came back even a month later, you would unlikely be able to get the contractor to fix the "defect"; because it is YOU that has a DUTY to INSPECT a craftsman's work, and PROMPTLY (and a month later isn't "promptly") report any defects/nonperformance.
Similarly, you don't have to do free development on any "improvements" to your software, above and beyond what is expressly written into the contract.
This client thinks (and maybe rightly) that he has a vendor that doesn't understand his own rights, and so is just seeing how far he can push...
How could you possibly call an API if the argument structure was copyrightable? Buy a license for every single API set that was delivered with your machine, associated with every software product, or hosted somewhere on the web?
In a world of stupid IP laws, at least this judge gets it. (Which surprises the hell out of me).
That's because THIS Judge is a DEVELOPER (which surprises the hell outta me!)
I'm sure Apple fanboys like evil_aaronm will fawn all over this, but it goes to show you just how pathetic this company and its buttboy users really are.
Wrong.
I, too, rolled my eyes at Apple making a common-use word like "Jailbreak" an "unword", as if it was going to keep knowledge of iOS Jailbreaks hidden from public view!!! Utterly ridiculous, and it smacks of overzealous middle-management.
My suspicion is that this was not properly "vetted" as a decision, or surely-to-Diety SOMEone would have pointed out not only the absurdity of the idea, but also the negative press that such a ridiculously heavy-handed example of censorship (yes, it's their store and all, but...) would visit upon them.
HOWEVER, one thing I have seen over my nearly 40 years (since 1976) as an Apple user and occasional developer, is that Apple really DOES listen to its customers and media (including blogs like Slashdot) (and unlike some companies) (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!), OFTEN modifies or, as in this case, completely reverses itself when it is clear that the majority thinks it is being stupid.
Everyone (including multibillion-dollar corporations) makes mistakes. But the true measure of the man (or company) lies in their ability to realize when they have made an error, and quickly and decisively act to correct that error.
Unifying the look between a tablet and desktop is a bad idea because the devices use very different screens and input hardware.
A tablet has a relatively small, but high-dpi screen, the only input by default is the touchscreen which may not even support a stylus and fingers are quite big compared to the pixels on the screen. The result:
1. Icons and text have to be big relative to the screen so the user can see them.
2. Buttons and other active areas have to be big and far apart, so it is possible to accurately select them using a finger.
On the other hand, a desktop has a big, but low-dpi screen (my monitor is 24", but the resolution is only 1920x1200), however, the mouse can be pixel-accurate, which means:
1. Icons have to be smaller relative to the screen, so more of them fits on the screen (nobody with normal eyesight needs a 4cm icon (yes, the smallest button in the Metro interface is about 4cm by 4cm if I enlarge the screenshot so it fills the screen)).
2. Buttons and other active areas can be smaller and closer together, so the user does not need to move the mouse as far.
These requirements are essentially mutually exclusive, which means that whatever interface you come up with will suck when used in tablets or desktops or both.
Which is one of the biggest reasons why OS X and iOS have a radically different look and feel.
Something that MS is fixin' to prove they simply cannot grasp... Yet again. Even AFTER Apple showed them the answer, they are STILL trying to put the SAME UI on the Desktop and Mobile universes. How stupid is that?!?
It's not like MS doesn't have enough development resources to build two GUIs...
1. OS X started the "glossy" look. Aero was a response to Aqua
There are a half dozen different 'glossy' UIs which predate OS X - most noteably, Enlightenment and whatever that shell modification is for Windows which has been around since forever which is based on (iirc) Afterstep. OS X has, actually, never really done 'glossy', though they did do AA'd fonts long before Windows did and have played around with various incarnations of 'soda fountain metal counter' and do a lot of drop shadows, which were done well the first time by Apple (though not the first implementation, just the first one to do hardware acceleration).
Aero performs better than OS X does the same hardware, actually, though that might be the OS and/or graphics drivers more so than the display widget software. OSX will take forever to do something, pre-rendering visual elements, so that when they are displayed they display crisply. Windows doesn't do that, so comparable shittiness looks better on a Mac, but may also take longer to perform... Overall I'd say Mac visuals are markedly slower than either Linux or Windows at this point, regardless of hardware.
Although your post sounds knowledgeable and all, you provide no examples nor benchmarks. I think your first comment regarding driver quality is much more to the point. They always seem to put the "B" team on the OS X drivers...
The government can't copyright ANYthing. That Stanford Law Journal article was written by one of our new breed of REALLY idiotic lawyers.
Seriously. The quality of lawyers that are graduating now (by and large) is truly horrific. Our increasingly short-attention-spans do not good lawyers make!
heck I have a powerful graphics card and windows 7 is always turning off Aero so that it can run programs gives me basic....this is probably another reason microsoft is getting rid of it....also windows8 is for desktop/mobile/tablet devices and mobile devices definately can't do Aero.
--calmchess
Two points:
1. OS X started the "glossy" look. Aero was a response to Aqua. Now, Apple has seriously "toned down" the glossy effects, jelly-bean buttons, etc. And now look: Microsoft falls right in line. Jus' sayin'...
2. Your second reason is the REAL 800lb elephant in the room. If your high-powered graphics card can't keep up with the inefficiently-coded Aero, there is absolutely no chance that Windows-on-ARM (I forget what they're calling it) will be able to execute Aero; so MS is simply deprecating it, and hiding the fact that it's a dog, by saying "Look at our fresh new look!"
You don't understand much about the physics of sound, do you?
But clearly you know more than Microsoft Research. Jackass.
Apparently I do, if they think that this not-even-ultrasonic (at least for young folk and pets) "SONAR" system is going to be acceptable to that market, and/or impervious to room-fan "warble".
PLEASE tell me who is going to want to sit in front of their laptop with this thing chirping (or even worse, whistling) at FULL BLAST (which it will HAVE to do to get enough "return" signal) right in their face?
BTW, I used to be a sound engineer in my younger days, and for the past 30+ years, have been an embedded systems developer (hardware and software)...
Slashdot Mirror
"I would expect a developer to consider iOS first just because it's more likely to show a return." Damn straight, sounds like Android users have been conditioned to believe that 99c is far too much to reward developers for their work. Damn cheapskates, buy a phone worth hundreds and expect all their extra games and apps to be free.
I was just about to post something similar.
Considering the fact that probably 95% of the Apps on the iOS App Store are under $10, there is absolutely zero excuse for pirating.
But some people just think the world owes them something.
Well, at least you got the Ron Paul thing right...
Actually, this statistic matters only to Apple, Samsung, and their ilk. WHat matters to users is unit sales, because those are the least-bad indicator of how healthy an ecosystem is, and how much developper/content owner attention it will attract.
You're both wrong.
To developers (remember them?); what matters is Number_of_Users * (Avg._Dollars_Spent_on_Software_per_User)
And guess who wins on that metric?
Hint: It's the same platform that has the most developers developing for it, despite the fact that developing for it requires (as some slashdotters can't get past) that you have certain hardware, and have to pay a "whopping" $99/year for a developer license.
Probably because it's another cherry-picked statistic to support the previously-determined answer they want. Who cares about "projects started" as a metric? How many of those projects are going to even be completed? The reason they picked such a meaningless metric is because it supported the view they wanted to present.
To what end? Why should they care who "wins"? Time to wrap some copper foil on your hat; the tinfoil isn't blocking enough of the mind-control waves...
I wish /. would stop with these stories.
I'm sure you do. The truth hurts...
I think it's obvious by now that both Android and iOS are feasible mobile platforms, we don't need fanboys from either side posting their stat-of-the-day that demonstrates that their choice is the best.
But yet, there you are, bashing on the messenger; which I'll bet you would NOT have done if the statistics had been the other way.
Fucking hypocrite.
BTW, in the interests of full disclosure, I love my Nexus S and tend to be "on Google's side".
As I was sayin'...
Lots of things start out as proof of concept and then become profitable. (Twitter, Facebook, Google, just to name a few.)
Not that that has anything to do with Android, or even F/OSS.
Now name 500,000 more. Because that's about how many you'll have to name to overcome the paid applications on the iOS App Store.
Apparently Android has successfully captured the something-for-free (as in beer) crowd while iOS has got the developers.
Exactly. That's why Android is so popular on /. Because, underneath all the "Software wants to be free" (as in Freedom) bullshit, 95% of the F/OSS supporters are simply lazy-ass slackers, that just want to leach off of someone else's hard work, and don't contribute one line of code, nor one dime, to ANY F/OSS project. Otherwise, why would so many F/OSS projects die on the vine due to lack of participation and/or funding? I'm not talking about the big, well-known ones; but the thousands of projects that haven't seen an update in years, or have simply disappeared altogether.
There are certainly F/OSS purists, like RMS; but you'll notice that when His name is mentioned around here; it is almost always in a derisive manner (e.g., check out the comments to this recent article. I don't even care about RMS, or even particularly about F/OSS, and I was appalled and frankly embarrassed at the negativity toward the father of GNU). So, when someone comes along, like RMS, who certainly CAN afford any software and hardware; but STILL chooses ONLY F/OSS solutions, he's labelled "extreme". But yet, on these pages, those same F/OSS posers come out in droves to spew the Apple Hate; whining about "Walled Gardens" and "I OWN my hardware!", and "Apple should die for being closed!".
So, as you said, paraphrasing: "Android is for cheapskates and slackers; iOS is for people that understand that the quality of things matters, and that, by and large, you get what you pay for, and that's what attracts (most) DEVELOPERS."
Now busily start your ad hominem (based on my username) and strawman attacks; because that's all you have...
I'm not really sure what I said that was so offensive. Am I wrong in thinking developers will follow the money?
No. You're wrong in posting on Slashdot that software might oughta COST money.
Linux works best when users don't know it's linux. Once you put it in front of consumers you're asking for trouble.
Linux works best when you don't expect your computer to be nothing more than a glorified TV/typewriter. The single most important feature of Linux is that it gives you power to solve complicated problems by combining very simple tools. You don't have to rely on somebody else to solve everything for you like on Windows or Mac.
Hmmm. There are FREE (and SUPPORTED!) tools for doing anything your peabrain can dream up on OS X.
Quit LYING, fucktard.
My aunt bought a new mac a week ago and was furious. She used Photoshop CS 4 and a few other Adobe products that were not even compatible in Lion! These were $700 packages too! She bought them in 2008 and were only 3.5 years old.
That is crazy and she was so angry she almost returned them and went with a PC as the new CS 6 ones would be compatible for 10+ years as long as Windows 7 keeps running until 2020 etc.
So, let me get this straight:
1. Apple has to hold back their OS development to suit a software vendor?
2. It is Apple's fault, not Adobe's, that software sometimes requires a paid upgrade?
3. It is Apple's fault, no Adobe's, that Adobe wrings every single dime out of CS that it can, every chance it gets?
4. That even though Win 7 might be "supported" for 10 years, that is absolutely NO guarantee that a "Security Patch" or "Service Pack" won't require a Paid Upgrade? Ask any Windows person about having to do JUST THAT.
5. Your Aunt would rather RE PURCHASE CS AND A NEW COMPUTER (AND have to deal with the security nightmare and non-ending bullshit that is Windows) than simply look around for a good deal on CS for Mac???
Today people just wont leave that POS XP. Yes, XP was a great version of Windows in its day in 2001 though had issues. Today it is terrible but it still is running and most IT departments and people on a budget plan to keep running it until 2014. It just works and wont die. Flashback was another issue I became mad at for Apple (even though I am not a mac user). The reason was is that Java was patched with recent versions of MacOSX but Apple left them out in the cold. no updates and of course these users say they do not run anti virus software with a smile.
That is borderline negligent. MS still updates XP for security even if they no longer do active development with it nor port modern browsers to the dying platform anymore.
Ahem. Apple actually "broke" their own OS-updating policy recently to issue a removal tool for the Flashback Java vulnerability, and an update that disables unsafe versions of Flash Player back to OS X 10.5 (Leopard), which is TWO revs back (and for both PPC and Intel, too). That is roughly equivalent to MS offering an security update for Windows ME (since Vista doesn't really count as a "rev"; but rather just as a bad joke that was ONLY released when it was to keep MS from defaulting on a zillion VLA contracts).
It used to be the case that longevity was a big selling point for Macs. Now it's actually the opposite, thanks to Apple's increasingly aggressive forced obsolescence policies. My 2007 Macbook, for instance, will not run Mountain Lion. Only five years of OS updates is pretty insane, IMHO. Remember when you could run System 7.5.5 (released late 1996) on a Mac Plus (released early 1986)?
Even if I were willing to run Lion forever, Apple typically only releases security updates for OSX one major version back. I refuse to run an internet-connected computer on an OS that doesn't get any security updates, so it's the end of the line whenever 10.9 is released, likely in 2013 or 2014.
This Macbook is my sixth Mac -- I've been using them since pretty much the day Commodore went under. But at this point I honestly wouldn't even consider replacing it with another Mac.
Since you said "Macbook" (and not Macbook PRO), I assume that yours is the bottom-of-the-line model that came with a CoreDuo (not Core2Duo) CPU. If that is the case, then the reason you got dropped off the upgrade chain is simple: Your CPU does not run 64-bit code. I'm not an Apple dev.; but I'm pretty sure that Mountain Lion represents Apple's move to a "64-bit clean" architecture. This is overall a good thing. You just got caught out by an architecture-shift. Happens.
And just because Apple doesn't regularly issue updates back more than one "major version" or OS X, doesn't mean it NEVER does. In fact, I believe that Apple just released a security update for OS X 10.5 about a week or so ago.
There are a gajillion Windows PCs in service right now that can't be upgraded past XP. So what? The G5 tower I purchased about a MONTH before the Intel-Switch was announced can't be upgraded past OS X 10.5 Leopard. But ya know what? That G5 tower just happens to be my main computer, and is the one I am typing this post on.
So, by the same token, the Windows PC world should be chastised for putting out machines that can't be upgraded past their ORIGINAL OS (let alone a couple of major revs forward!)? And that some of those laptops were purchased within a year of XP no longer being loaded by OEMs? And how about all those Windows machines that were NEVER capable of running some of the VERSIONS of the SAME OS? At a former employer, they purchased an HP laptop for a salesperson that couldn't even LOAD XP Pro, and therefore couldn't log on to our Domain. That's what I call INSTANT obsolescence!!!
The problem stems mostly from the fact that Apple is holding on to the "10" part of the OS X name for too long; making people think that each major revision of OS X is "just a simple upgrade"; when there are deeply-rooted (no pun) changes happening under the hood.
You are essentially whining that your Windows XP laptop won't run Windows 7. Do you really think that will cease if you "jump ship" away from OS X???
LOL, you actually think that Apple build quality is better than what you get when you buy a Thinkpad? Seriously? What you're paying for is a lot of branding bullshit and if you're lucky some hardware.
There's many companies you can buy PC products from and if you don't like how one vendor handles things you can just buy from a different one.
Yes. Apple's build quality (especially the case) is obviously better than creaky, brittle plastic cases. And you are simply delusional if you disagree. Period.
So, your suggestion would be to spend MORE than a MacBook Pro on an SUCCESSION of sucky laptops, rather than just spending just slightly more (debatably) on an Apple laptop?
Wow. Do you suffer brain damage as a child?
Windows just works on the desktop but some php and other code is only available or works much better on Linux unfortunately.
Then MacOS should be objectively the best OS, as it has good desktop and usable command line. I dunno. I've never had a Mac, but I've been thinking about it.
I will get flamed for my username (as usual on /. ); but you have objectively come to the correct conclusion. It's just a shame that so many on Slashdot cannot separate zealotry from facts.
I bought a MacBook largely for the same reasons. I needed what it offered and Linux couldn't compete without having to spend more time learning this and that or hunting for crappy software that it wasn't worth it. I'm with you on just not caring about the license anymore. Even Linus Torvalds finds some open source licenses way too much. GPLv3 is way too off the hook and most developers are now choosing other licenses like MIT, Apache, and even BSD. The BSD license is my personal favorite.
And even better, if there is something in Linux he likes, he can run that in a VM.
Why did you need to get rid of Linux?
He didn't NEED to get rid of Linux; he WANTED to get rid of Linux.
And I'm sure it was because he wanted to work WITH his computer, instead of working ON his computer.
Ya know, for all the Linux fanbois who bitch about "Religious" Apple enthusiasts, Linux zealots are just as bad, or worse.
Jus' sayin'...
Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side
Windows may suck for a long list of reasons, but for some odd reason, will millions of brilliant nerds working for a goal, more shit gets screwed up on OSS systems, more frequently. Personally I went from a windows only mindset in the mid to late 90's to a linux only mindset in the 2000's, just to end up dreading having to boot linux in the 2010's
And now, it's time to try OS X...
BTW, my Win 7 work laptop regularly has screen-redraw issues. Just last week, it left a hunk of a dragged-window laying around on top of another application's window area until I closed and reopened the "defiled" application (which happened to be Outlook, BTW). It REGULARLY leaves temporary "window-drag-trails".
But, I've NEVER seen OS X do that. In fact, I've only seen it "freeze" the cursor for a second or two (the worst "screen update" issue I've seen using OS X), and that only about four or five times in a decade of use. I've never seen it doing what you describe, or even anything remotely close.
It's probably a good idea to check with a lawyer if there is a legally required support duration and what is covered under it. In this case, he should be happy if there is, because then he tells the client that he'll provide support as legally required and any additional support would have to be negotiated. Don't leave the client hanging if he needs support now and is willing to negotiate a support contract. Be prepared to write off that support in case no contract materializes though and be firm if the client tries to drag this out.
Although I certainly agree that a consult with a lawyer is a good idea, just to make sure their isn't a support period required by statute or caselaw, I completely reject the idea that a contract that is "silent" on the issue of support automatically transmogrifies into a tacit agreement by you to support your "work for hire" indefinitely.
Think about it; the client signed that contract, too! The onus was ACTUALLY on the OTHER party to make sure that "support" was covered; otherwise, I contend that your duty to support (if there was any, and absent any specific statutory/caselaw provisions) ENDED when the client put the software into his "live" system, and started to use it on a regular basis.
Even if you didn't put a "merchantability or fitness of purpose" disclaimer into your contract, every single day he uses your software without complaint is further evidence in your favor against any "nonperformance" claim he might have.
Remember, courts are bound by the four-corners of the contract, as extended and modified by statute/caselaw.
But THAT IS ALL! If "Support" isn't mentioned in the contract (and there isn't a statute/case decision to the contrary), then your support term is ZERO.
That's why "Lifetime Guarantees" are ALWAYS in WRITING.
A Court would NEVER "infer" that there was a "meeting of the minds" that you agreed to support your work forever! That would be like you CONTRACTING a WORK FOR HIRE to paint your house, then expecting the contractor to come back and touch up any chips or defects forever. Even if you discovered the contractor missed an entire wall in his painting, if you came back even a month later, you would unlikely be able to get the contractor to fix the "defect"; because it is YOU that has a DUTY to INSPECT a craftsman's work, and PROMPTLY (and a month later isn't "promptly") report any defects/nonperformance.
Similarly, you don't have to do free development on any "improvements" to your software, above and beyond what is expressly written into the contract.
This client thinks (and maybe rightly) that he has a vendor that doesn't understand his own rights, and so is just seeing how far he can push...
This!
How could you possibly call an API if the argument structure was copyrightable? Buy a license for every single API set that was delivered with your machine, associated with every software product, or hosted somewhere on the web?
In a world of stupid IP laws, at least this judge gets it. (Which surprises the hell out of me).
That's because THIS Judge is a DEVELOPER (which surprises the hell outta me!)
I'm sure Apple fanboys like evil_aaronm will fawn all over this, but it goes to show you just how pathetic this company and its buttboy users really are.
Wrong.
I, too, rolled my eyes at Apple making a common-use word like "Jailbreak" an "unword", as if it was going to keep knowledge of iOS Jailbreaks hidden from public view!!! Utterly ridiculous, and it smacks of overzealous middle-management.
My suspicion is that this was not properly "vetted" as a decision, or surely-to-Diety SOMEone would have pointed out not only the absurdity of the idea, but also the negative press that such a ridiculously heavy-handed example of censorship (yes, it's their store and all, but...) would visit upon them.
HOWEVER, one thing I have seen over my nearly 40 years (since 1976) as an Apple user and occasional developer, is that Apple really DOES listen to its customers and media (including blogs like Slashdot) (and unlike some companies) (I'm looking at you, Microsoft!), OFTEN modifies or, as in this case, completely reverses itself when it is clear that the majority thinks it is being stupid.
Everyone (including multibillion-dollar corporations) makes mistakes. But the true measure of the man (or company) lies in their ability to realize when they have made an error, and quickly and decisively act to correct that error.
And this is what Apple has done.
Unifying the look between a tablet and desktop is a bad idea because the devices use very different screens and input hardware.
A tablet has a relatively small, but high-dpi screen, the only input by default is the touchscreen which may not even support a stylus and fingers are quite big compared to the pixels on the screen. The result: 1. Icons and text have to be big relative to the screen so the user can see them. 2. Buttons and other active areas have to be big and far apart, so it is possible to accurately select them using a finger.
On the other hand, a desktop has a big, but low-dpi screen (my monitor is 24", but the resolution is only 1920x1200), however, the mouse can be pixel-accurate, which means: 1. Icons have to be smaller relative to the screen, so more of them fits on the screen (nobody with normal eyesight needs a 4cm icon (yes, the smallest button in the Metro interface is about 4cm by 4cm if I enlarge the screenshot so it fills the screen)). 2. Buttons and other active areas can be smaller and closer together, so the user does not need to move the mouse as far.
These requirements are essentially mutually exclusive, which means that whatever interface you come up with will suck when used in tablets or desktops or both.
Which is one of the biggest reasons why OS X and iOS have a radically different look and feel.
Something that MS is fixin' to prove they simply cannot grasp... Yet again. Even AFTER Apple showed them the answer, they are STILL trying to put the SAME UI on the Desktop and Mobile universes. How stupid is that?!?
It's not like MS doesn't have enough development resources to build two GUIs...
1. OS X started the "glossy" look. Aero was a response to Aqua
There are a half dozen different 'glossy' UIs which predate OS X - most noteably, Enlightenment and whatever that shell modification is for Windows which has been around since forever which is based on (iirc) Afterstep. OS X has, actually, never really done 'glossy', though they did do AA'd fonts long before Windows did and have played around with various incarnations of 'soda fountain metal counter' and do a lot of drop shadows, which were done well the first time by Apple (though not the first implementation, just the first one to do hardware acceleration).
Aero performs better than OS X does the same hardware, actually, though that might be the OS and/or graphics drivers more so than the display widget software. OSX will take forever to do something, pre-rendering visual elements, so that when they are displayed they display crisply. Windows doesn't do that, so comparable shittiness looks better on a Mac, but may also take longer to perform... Overall I'd say Mac visuals are markedly slower than either Linux or Windows at this point, regardless of hardware.
Although your post sounds knowledgeable and all, you provide no examples nor benchmarks. I think your first comment regarding driver quality is much more to the point. They always seem to put the "B" team on the OS X drivers...
I think car analogies just became obsolete.
*TRULY* LOL!
If I remember right, government works automatically fall into public domain. Wikipedia seems to think so too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Government_works
Exactly!
The government can't copyright ANYthing. That Stanford Law Journal article was written by one of our new breed of REALLY idiotic lawyers.
Seriously. The quality of lawyers that are graduating now (by and large) is truly horrific. Our increasingly short-attention-spans do not good lawyers make!
Welcome to Idiocracy!
heck I have a powerful graphics card and windows 7 is always turning off Aero so that it can run programs gives me basic....this is probably another reason microsoft is getting rid of it....also windows8 is for desktop/mobile/tablet devices and mobile devices definately can't do Aero.
--calmchess
Two points:
1. OS X started the "glossy" look. Aero was a response to Aqua. Now, Apple has seriously "toned down" the glossy effects, jelly-bean buttons, etc. And now look: Microsoft falls right in line. Jus' sayin'...
2. Your second reason is the REAL 800lb elephant in the room. If your high-powered graphics card can't keep up with the inefficiently-coded Aero, there is absolutely no chance that Windows-on-ARM (I forget what they're calling it) will be able to execute Aero; so MS is simply deprecating it, and hiding the fact that it's a dog, by saying "Look at our fresh new look!"
RMS has spent his life fighting for his own agenda.
Fixed it for you.
But then, who doesn't fight for their own agenda, really?
You don't understand much about the physics of sound, do you?
But clearly you know more than Microsoft Research. Jackass.
Apparently I do, if they think that this not-even-ultrasonic (at least for young folk and pets) "SONAR" system is going to be acceptable to that market, and/or impervious to room-fan "warble".
PLEASE tell me who is going to want to sit in front of their laptop with this thing chirping (or even worse, whistling) at FULL BLAST (which it will HAVE to do to get enough "return" signal) right in their face?
BTW, I used to be a sound engineer in my younger days, and for the past 30+ years, have been an embedded systems developer (hardware and software)...
Fucktard.