Then how does he LEGALLY test for his one in ten (or more) website visitors that will be using Macs?
That depends on how different Safari for Mac is from Safari for Windows. I seem to remember that around the time the iPhone came out, Apple introduced a version of Safari for Windows designed so that the text would look like it does on a Mac: blurrier (with heavier antialiasing) yet more print-like in ways.
Actually, the first version of Safari for Windows was like that, and so many Windows people whined that it looked different from what they were USED TO that Apple later changed it to render fonts like a "regular" Windows browser. So, for better or worse, Safari for Windows and Safari for Mac are different beasts.
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
No, this Apple policy should prevent people from running their software at all. I don't understand how developers can stomach Apple's modes of control: that the company won't allow their systems to be virtualized, if only for development testing, is egregious.
The only problem with that is who can police such a policy? Once Apple allows ANY use of OS X on other hardware; then there are no amount of license terms that can keep the floodgates closed.
Further, then they INSTANTLY get in the same trickbag that Windows (and Linux) have always been in: Hardware and driver-compatibility issues. And no amount of "Approved hardware list" would stop a metric buttload of angry slashdot posters then whining about how OS X crashes on this config, and I can't get my WiFi to work, my Sound won't work, I can't find a driver for my Graphics Card, blah, blah, blah. Seriously, have you ever stopped to think about the fact that an OS is much more than just the fucking KERNEL?
Open standards and free use of software are what have made possible a lot of the technology we rely upon today. Disallowing even virtualization of a proprietary OS is much further than even Microsoft will go.
And if Apple wanted to charge the $500 that MS does for a decent (read even usable) version of Windows, again, the intarweb troglodytes would bitch about how Apple was profiteering on OS X, blah, blah, woof, woof. And STILL, there would be the compatibility problems listed above, and instead of a few bleating Linux whiners, Apple would get the same black eye that Windows has gotten (and if Linux actually HAD any real presence, would have too), with users bitching about how it doesn't run fast on their $100 sucktastic box they got a WallyWorld. Again, et frickin' cetera. THINK.
We need to demand openness from software companies. When a company like Apple doesn't want to participate in this, people (especially developers) should avoid the company's products. Choose to run one of the many fine open systems (Openindiana, BSD, or a Linux distribution), and tell this company to shove it.
Considering their market cap (second highest of ALL companies, not just computer companies), and the fact that WWDC just sold out in less than TEN HOURS, methinks YOU'RE the one who is seriously in need of an attitude adjustment, not them.
Besides, my point was clear: you can run Windows on any damn hardware you feel like as long as it meets its technological requirements, and the same goes for Linux, FreeBSD, FreeDOS, Minix, and pretty much every OS I can think of, even freakin' Android. Only exception? Apple's "thou shalt only use thy copy on thy Apple-branded computer" OSX.
Now go back whence you came, angry troll, and trouble our threads no more.
Oh, THAT was your point! I sure wish you'd elucidated that with something more informative than "Yeah, that's one of the perks of going with a closed platform in a sea of open ones." I'm pretty sure that not one slashdotter in 10,000 caught your meaning, because who in his right mind thinks "Open Platform" when talking about anything other than Linux or its variant, Android (which isn't a desktop OS anyway)? And your inclusion (now) of FreeBSD, FreeDOS, and Minix (fercrissakes!) shows just how deparate you are to now hide the ignorance of your statement.
I think that the relative "trolliness" quotient of your one-liner comment was much higher than my rebuttal. And, scrolling upward, I note that YOUR comment started this sub-thread; so I was actually simply feeding YOUR trollish comment.
Besides, Apple is a HARDWARE company, which also makes them unique among ALL platforms with more than a few hundred users worldwide (honestly, how many people are running the FreeDOS or Minix?), whether in your mythical "Sea of Open Platforms" or not; it stands to reason that they would restrict their OS (which doesn't really make them any significant money, especially when compared with its development and maintenance costs) to their hardware. They tried it the other way, and it nearly killed them dead. Remember?
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
Wrong, unless your website caters exclusively to the US. Apple's worldwide marketshare is far lower than in the Hipster States of America.
Lower than Linux? I think not.
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
Not really, it isn't. There's a perfectly good argument for running only a barebones OS directly on the metal and everything else on VMs, but if you try to do that with Apple's dearest you have to be prepared to go to hell and back for it, even on Apple's own hardware. The GP's line about OSX being VM-hostile may have been a "bald-faced allusion", whatever that is, but one thing it's not is inaccurate.
Prove it.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
The only ones costing more are luxury models, ala Ferrari laptop.
Or, in other words, the only ones that approach the build quality of a garden variety MacBook, right? See how that works? You just made my argument for me, thanks!
A good Thinkpad however will cost you a fair bit less and will still be running long after the Mac hits the dumpster.
Citation, please. That's not what I hear from Lenovo owners, especially.
Of course, by then most Apple heads will scream "but who would want to run a laptop that old!?", but then you're back with the "$300 laptop every few years" plan on the non-Apple side.
And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
Heh... I spent $1200 on my latest personal laptop and it's actually more agressive than the $1900 price ranged model.
Sure, you can spend $4k on a laptop (Current employer...) but you're talking an i7 with 16GB of RAM and the top of the line Mobile NVidia Quadro in it. Most of that expense is due to the insane amount of RAM and the Quadro in the thing. Apple doesn't provide that to the best of my knowledge- and if they did, you'd shell out as much as the company did.
Also worth noting: I don't buy your line there on the quality...
The only thing you're paying for is the "stability" that the constrained hardware Apple provides with OSX machines- that and the prestige price of buying Apple.
What the fuck ever, dude. This is getting increasingly like arguing with my dog. Pointless.
The cool thing about choosing a Mac as a web dev. platform is that you can run nearly every OS on it.
Yeah, that's one of the perks of going with a closed platform in a sea of open ones.
Do you even read what you are posting before clicking "Submit"?
And what "sea" of Open Platforms are you thinking of, or are you really counting the totally asinine plethora of Linux distros as separate "Platforms"? I can only think of ONE "Open Platform" with more than a few hundred users WORLDWIDE: Linux. And its web "marketshare" on the CLIENT side (you know, the people who will actually be VISITING your website) hovers (after nearly 20 years!) at less than 1%. At least with OS X, not only can you LEGALLY run/test with ALL the OSes with more than.00000000000000000000000001% marketshare; but you are set up to natively (and LEGALLY) run an OS with about TEN TIMES the web-client presence as the Linux you are pushing.
So, if you want to discuss a platform that is NOT representative of nearly ALL the people visiting ANY website (other than Linux dev sites, MAYBE), then just test your website under Linux.
Heh...the same might be said of either of the other two main OSes out there. Even doing a VM can have it's own set of fun- it's not a magic bullet for everything.
Did I say that?
So, by your POV, you MUST develop ONLY on the platform on which you intend to deploy? I'm not sure that many devs, especially WEB devs, often have that luxury; nor it is particularly relevant to this discussion, or to his mindless rant.
He is someone who from your point of view is an idiot, but in the view of people with money and a whole lot more experience in what is good and what is not is a smart guy who knows his stuff.
Which in turn paints you as an idiot.
Wrong. It just paints those people as even more ignorant than he.
Idiocy, like IQ is not a binary function. There are degrees of idiocy. He just happens to be on a slightly higher level (slightly less idiotic) than those who believe his ignorant drivel.
And now, here you are DEFENDING his ignorance. What does that make YOU?
>> All his "problems" are down to the fact that he's developing for Linux servers and Mac OS isn't Linux.
Oh.. so now it's not linux. It's not even unix anymore? And just in the other thread I read about a million time that OS X is Unix, that OS X is linux. Stick to one thing, itards!
OS X is NOT Linux in any way, shape or form. Those who claim that are misinformed, or simply stupid.
And, unlike Linux, OS X DOES have BSD roots (how many times do I have to post this on a supposedly geek-infested forum?!?), and has a UNIX Certification.
So, it is completely and totally NOT Linux, and more Unix than not.
So he has to pay over the odds for hardware, and then buy a separate Windows license, instead of just buying the Lenovo? That doesn't sound too smart to me.
Then how does he LEGALLY test for his one in ten (or more) website visitors that will be using Macs?
...sure. Pick an OS because it is the one that is the most hostile to being virtualized and has the most expensive hardware so when you do decide to run something in a VM you will pay dearly for the priveledge or simply be out of luck.
The real question is why bother with MacOS in the first place?
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
I know you're thinking you're being snarky; but instead, you are simply showing your ignorance.
Name one other hardware platform that can LEGALLY run more OSes than Macs can, either natively, or through virtualization (which of course is not the same as emulation).
It "matters" if you try to write multiprocess/multithreaded code but aren't good at it, though that's mostly a question of what synchronization screwups you can make and still get code that seems correct when tested.
Please show me the thread create/destroy tags in HTML.
WTF does threading have to do with web coding? If I'm being ignorant, be gentle, because my expertise is in embedded development, not web coding; but I have never heard of any way for a web developer to tell the webserver to spawn a thread purposefully. I am sure that some, if not all, web servers by now actually do it; but they do it based on their own rules, not by the direct invocation of an HTML tag, right?
I agree that Mac OS X is bad for web development. That was my impression too, after I've bought my Mac Book. After a while, I realized that I can just use VirtualBox or VMWare to run a Debian dev environment. Running Debian has the advantage of replicating my production environment, so I know what modules and external binaries that I need to install later on. I also don't make the silly mistake of using incorrect capitalization on file names, since my file system is case-sensitive.
Textmate? Yeah, it's not suitable for programming. I solved this by mounting my dev VM using sshfs, and by editing my files through MacVim.
You're nearly as big an idiot as the OP. Read the comments in this thread to see why.
It's not that he doesn't have a home key.. it's that on a mac, home jumps to the top of the page, instead of the beginning of the line. End works the same way.
For what you want, try CONTROL+A (beginning of line/paragraph) and CONTROL+E (end of line/paragraph). Yes, it is a bit of a pain for people who use Windows; but you are still demonstrably incorrect regarding the Home and End behaviors.
I don't remember what ASCII codes (if any) the "Home" and "End" keys normally generate; but using my "Windows-centric" keyboard in OS X, CONTROL+LEFTARROW and CONTROL+RIGHTARROW do the beginning/end of line functions. The CONTROL+UPARROW and CONTROL+DOWNARROW seem to do beginning of document/end of document, as do the Home and End keys.
Honestly, though, the hardest thing I have to adjust to going back and forth between OS X and Windows is the Command C/X/V/Z/A conventions in the Apple world versus the Control C/X/V/Z/A versions in Windows. They are too similar. I know that Windows copied those letters from the original MacOS (who may have copied them from something even earlier); but they are too similar. In fact, I have suggested to many people who live in both worlds (especially ones who are used to Windows) to get something like Keyboard Maestro and remap the "Command" versions to "Control".
For a laptop? What's the point of having one, then?
I wouldn't say that it's a killer deficiency, but the lack of Home/End certainly is annoying.
Maybe because, in my twenty years of using laptops of all persuasions, IMHO, pretty much all laptop keyboards suck for doing serious work in one way or another.
They all seem to have missing or "folded" key functions. Now, I'm sure someone will point to a 75 lb. Alienware luggable that doesn't; but for 99% of the laptop keyboards out there, you'd be better off stashing a real USB or Bluetooth keyboard in your backpack for when you are doing lotsa typing.
I would never develop on a platform where you have to press Alt-Ri---er, Command-Right to do what the Home button does on any other platform.
Your joke is even ill-informed. Everyone that has used a Mac for more than a day knows that OPTION is the "Alt" key, not "Command", like your stupid comment implies.
"Command" has no actual equivalent in any other OS (although that stupid "Windows"-logo key works as Command on "Windows" keyboards). Next time you want to make fun of an OS's modifier-key conventions, at least demonstrate a minimum level of competency.
Not only are there several variants of Emacs for OS X, apparently it is ALREADY INSTALLED. When I use Emacs (not very often, because there are better OS X text editors), I tend to use the Aquamacs GUI version.
This guy needs FIRED from his web developer job immediately; because he obviously doesn't have even the intelligence to breathe, let alone develop code of ANY sort.
That's like saying man up and go see a Justin Bieber concert while prancing around in a field of flowers dressed in all pink.
I think you meant "man up use cat".
Is it possible to have an Apple-related article on/. without wasting fifty linear feet of scrolling-space with off-topic femininity/sexual-orientation slurs?
Sounds like an idiot who can't setup a VM. I mean really: "I need to run Linux, whhaaa!!!!" - set up a VM, you utter muppet. What a total retard. And "emacs" OK fine, but does he not know about Coda?
He IS a total retard. The cool thing about choosing a Mac as a web dev. platform is that you can run nearly every OS on it.
And, I don't know what this meme is about Emacs. I've been running the Aqua-fied verson of Emacs since OS X 10.3. Did it go away or something?
I'm glad that at least ONE of my guesses (the search-term one) was correct.
One question though: Why is the latest "G" language reference manual appear to be like 1998? I actually thought the guy was right about G being somewhat deprecated as a term (NOT as a language, though!), based on the fact that I really couldn't find any decent references to G on the NI site that were newer than about 2002 or 2003.
My apologies, and thanks for making one of the coolest-looking languages on the planet!
I haven't worked personally with LabVIEW since 7.1 (and that was on Windows. Ick!); so forgive me if you guys have fixed this; but I always wondered why there isn't a ZOOM in the wiring-diagram view. I hate having to lay out a damn BANNER just to get an overview of a complicated VI
Slashdot Mirror
Then how does he LEGALLY test for his one in ten (or more) website visitors that will be using Macs?
That depends on how different Safari for Mac is from Safari for Windows. I seem to remember that around the time the iPhone came out, Apple introduced a version of Safari for Windows designed so that the text would look like it does on a Mac: blurrier (with heavier antialiasing) yet more print-like in ways.
Actually, the first version of Safari for Windows was like that, and so many Windows people whined that it looked different from what they were USED TO that Apple later changed it to render fonts like a "regular" Windows browser. So, for better or worse, Safari for Windows and Safari for Mac are different beasts.
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
No, this Apple policy should prevent people from running their software at all. I don't understand how developers can stomach Apple's modes of control: that the company won't allow their systems to be virtualized, if only for development testing, is egregious.
The only problem with that is who can police such a policy? Once Apple allows ANY use of OS X on other hardware; then there are no amount of license terms that can keep the floodgates closed.
Further, then they INSTANTLY get in the same trickbag that Windows (and Linux) have always been in: Hardware and driver-compatibility issues. And no amount of "Approved hardware list" would stop a metric buttload of angry slashdot posters then whining about how OS X crashes on this config, and I can't get my WiFi to work, my Sound won't work, I can't find a driver for my Graphics Card, blah, blah, blah. Seriously, have you ever stopped to think about the fact that an OS is much more than just the fucking KERNEL?
Open standards and free use of software are what have made possible a lot of the technology we rely upon today. Disallowing even virtualization of a proprietary OS is much further than even Microsoft will go.
And if Apple wanted to charge the $500 that MS does for a decent (read even usable) version of Windows, again, the intarweb troglodytes would bitch about how Apple was profiteering on OS X, blah, blah, woof, woof. And STILL, there would be the compatibility problems listed above, and instead of a few bleating Linux whiners, Apple would get the same black eye that Windows has gotten (and if Linux actually HAD any real presence, would have too), with users bitching about how it doesn't run fast on their $100 sucktastic box they got a WallyWorld. Again, et frickin' cetera. THINK.
We need to demand openness from software companies. When a company like Apple doesn't want to participate in this, people (especially developers) should avoid the company's products. Choose to run one of the many fine open systems (Openindiana, BSD, or a Linux distribution), and tell this company to shove it.
Considering their market cap (second highest of ALL companies, not just computer companies), and the fact that WWDC just sold out in less than TEN HOURS, methinks YOU'RE the one who is seriously in need of an attitude adjustment, not them.
Angry much? ;)
Besides, my point was clear: you can run Windows on any damn hardware you feel like as long as it meets its technological requirements, and the same goes for Linux, FreeBSD, FreeDOS, Minix, and pretty much every OS I can think of, even freakin' Android. Only exception? Apple's "thou shalt only use thy copy on thy Apple-branded computer" OSX.
Now go back whence you came, angry troll, and trouble our threads no more.
Oh, THAT was your point! I sure wish you'd elucidated that with something more informative than "Yeah, that's one of the perks of going with a closed platform in a sea of open ones." I'm pretty sure that not one slashdotter in 10,000 caught your meaning, because who in his right mind thinks "Open Platform" when talking about anything other than Linux or its variant, Android (which isn't a desktop OS anyway)? And your inclusion (now) of FreeBSD, FreeDOS, and Minix (fercrissakes!) shows just how deparate you are to now hide the ignorance of your statement.
I think that the relative "trolliness" quotient of your one-liner comment was much higher than my rebuttal. And, scrolling upward, I note that YOUR comment started this sub-thread; so I was actually simply feeding YOUR trollish comment.
Besides, Apple is a HARDWARE company, which also makes them unique among ALL platforms with more than a few hundred users worldwide (honestly, how many people are running the FreeDOS or Minix?), whether in your mythical "Sea of Open Platforms" or not; it stands to reason that they would restrict their OS (which doesn't really make them any significant money, especially when compared with its development and maintenance costs) to their hardware. They tried it the other way, and it nearly killed them dead. Remember?
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
Wrong, unless your website caters exclusively to the US. Apple's worldwide marketshare is far lower than in the Hipster States of America.
Lower than Linux? I think not.
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
Not really, it isn't. There's a perfectly good argument for running only a barebones OS directly on the metal and everything else on VMs, but if you try to do that with Apple's dearest you have to be prepared to go to hell and back for it, even on Apple's own hardware. The GP's line about OSX being VM-hostile may have been a "bald-faced allusion", whatever that is, but one thing it's not is inaccurate.
Prove it.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
The only ones costing more are luxury models, ala Ferrari laptop.
Or, in other words, the only ones that approach the build quality of a garden variety MacBook, right? See how that works? You just made my argument for me, thanks!
A good Thinkpad however will cost you a fair bit less and will still be running long after the Mac hits the dumpster.
Citation, please. That's not what I hear from Lenovo owners, especially.
Of course, by then most Apple heads will scream "but who would want to run a laptop that old!?", but then you're back with the "$300 laptop every few years" plan on the non-Apple side.
Heh... I spent $1200 on my latest personal laptop and it's actually more agressive than the $1900 price ranged model.
Sure, you can spend $4k on a laptop (Current employer...) but you're talking an i7 with 16GB of RAM and the top of the line Mobile NVidia Quadro in it. Most of that expense is due to the insane amount of RAM and the Quadro in the thing. Apple doesn't provide that to the best of my knowledge- and if they did, you'd shell out as much as the company did.
Also worth noting: I don't buy your line there on the quality...
The only thing you're paying for is the "stability" that the constrained hardware Apple provides with OSX machines- that and the prestige price of buying Apple.
What the fuck ever, dude. This is getting increasingly like arguing with my dog. Pointless.
The cool thing about choosing a Mac as a web dev. platform is that you can run nearly every OS on it.
Yeah, that's one of the perks of going with a closed platform in a sea of open ones.
Do you even read what you are posting before clicking "Submit"?
.00000000000000000000000001% marketshare; but you are set up to natively (and LEGALLY) run an OS with about TEN TIMES the web-client presence as the Linux you are pushing.
And what "sea" of Open Platforms are you thinking of, or are you really counting the totally asinine plethora of Linux distros as separate "Platforms"? I can only think of ONE "Open Platform" with more than a few hundred users WORLDWIDE: Linux. And its web "marketshare" on the CLIENT side (you know, the people who will actually be VISITING your website) hovers (after nearly 20 years!) at less than 1%. At least with OS X, not only can you LEGALLY run/test with ALL the OSes with more than
So, if you want to discuss a platform that is NOT representative of nearly ALL the people visiting ANY website (other than Linux dev sites, MAYBE), then just test your website under Linux.
Heh...the same might be said of either of the other two main OSes out there. Even doing a VM can have it's own set of fun- it's not a magic bullet for everything.
Did I say that?
So, by your POV, you MUST develop ONLY on the platform on which you intend to deploy? I'm not sure that many devs, especially WEB devs, often have that luxury; nor it is particularly relevant to this discussion, or to his mindless rant.
He is someone who from your point of view is an idiot, but in the view of people with money and a whole lot more experience in what is good and what is not is a smart guy who knows his stuff.
Which in turn paints you as an idiot.
Wrong. It just paints those people as even more ignorant than he.
Idiocy, like IQ is not a binary function. There are degrees of idiocy. He just happens to be on a slightly higher level (slightly less idiotic) than those who believe his ignorant drivel.
And now, here you are DEFENDING his ignorance. What does that make YOU?
>> All his "problems" are down to the fact that he's developing for Linux servers and Mac OS isn't Linux.
Oh.. so now it's not linux. It's not even unix anymore? And just in the other thread I read about a million time that OS X is Unix, that OS X is linux. Stick to one thing, itards!
OS X is NOT Linux in any way, shape or form. Those who claim that are misinformed, or simply stupid.
And, unlike Linux, OS X DOES have BSD roots (how many times do I have to post this on a supposedly geek-infested forum?!?), and has a UNIX Certification.
So, it is completely and totally NOT Linux, and more Unix than not.
But, in reality, it so much more than either of those.
BTW, in the diagram above, do you see the Linux Kernel ANYWHERE?
So, now who's the "'Tard"?
So he has to pay over the odds for hardware, and then buy a separate Windows license, instead of just buying the Lenovo? That doesn't sound too smart to me.
Then how does he LEGALLY test for his one in ten (or more) website visitors that will be using Macs?
More accurately, OS X is the only one that doesn't have the option of easily running it on commodity hardware.
Which is exactly why it Just Works.
...sure. Pick an OS because it is the one that is the most hostile to being virtualized and has the most expensive hardware so when you do decide to run something in a VM you will pay dearly for the priveledge or simply be out of luck.
The real question is why bother with MacOS in the first place?
Um, because more than one in ten of your website visitors is likely to be running OS X, and there is no other hardware that can LEGALLY run OS X?
And, if you are RUNNING on a Mac, then then your bald-faced allusion that OS X is "the most hostile to being virtualized" is absolutely moot.
As for the "most expensive hardware" claim, there are PLENTY of machines, especially laptops that cost as much, or even significantly MORE, than even the most expensive Mac laptops.And don't start with your "I can buy a laptop for $100 at Fry's" bullshit. Because everyone with more than two functioning neurons knows that that laptop will be in the dumpster, broken, in less than a year, whereas the Mac laptop will, by and large, be chugging along at the five to ten year mark.
I wish I had mod points today. Nicely done.
I know you're thinking you're being snarky; but instead, you are simply showing your ignorance.
Name one other hardware platform that can LEGALLY run more OSes than Macs can, either natively, or through virtualization (which of course is not the same as emulation).
It "matters" if you try to write multiprocess/multithreaded code but aren't good at it, though that's mostly a question of what synchronization screwups you can make and still get code that seems correct when tested.
Please show me the thread create/destroy tags in HTML.
WTF does threading have to do with web coding? If I'm being ignorant, be gentle, because my expertise is in embedded development, not web coding; but I have never heard of any way for a web developer to tell the webserver to spawn a thread purposefully. I am sure that some, if not all, web servers by now actually do it; but they do it based on their own rules, not by the direct invocation of an HTML tag, right?
I agree that Mac OS X is bad for web development. That was my impression too, after I've bought my Mac Book. After a while, I realized that I can just use VirtualBox or VMWare to run a Debian dev environment. Running Debian has the advantage of replicating my production environment, so I know what modules and external binaries that I need to install later on. I also don't make the silly mistake of using incorrect capitalization on file names, since my file system is case-sensitive. Textmate? Yeah, it's not suitable for programming. I solved this by mounting my dev VM using sshfs, and by editing my files through MacVim.
You're nearly as big an idiot as the OP. Read the comments in this thread to see why.
This clown should be catapulted into the sun.
Actually, catapulting something into The Sun is much harder than it looks. Just sayin'...
Doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
Just sayin'...
Ted Dziuba is a co-founder of Milo.com, which just sold to eBay for $75 million.
I'm guessing your leet Web skills brought in more than that last year, which is why you feel comfortable calling him an "amateur."
So, he's now a RICH idiot. Your point being?
It's not that he doesn't have a home key.. it's that on a mac, home jumps to the top of the page, instead of the beginning of the line. End works the same way.
BZZT! WRONG! Thanks for playing!
There are actually a ZILLION keyboard shortcuts built into OS X. In fact, some are REALLY arcane.
For what you want, try CONTROL+A (beginning of line/paragraph) and CONTROL+E (end of line/paragraph). Yes, it is a bit of a pain for people who use Windows; but you are still demonstrably incorrect regarding the Home and End behaviors.
I don't remember what ASCII codes (if any) the "Home" and "End" keys normally generate; but using my "Windows-centric" keyboard in OS X, CONTROL+LEFTARROW and CONTROL+RIGHTARROW do the beginning/end of line functions. The CONTROL+UPARROW and CONTROL+DOWNARROW seem to do beginning of document/end of document, as do the Home and End keys.
Honestly, though, the hardest thing I have to adjust to going back and forth between OS X and Windows is the Command C/X/V/Z/A conventions in the Apple world versus the Control C/X/V/Z/A versions in Windows. They are too similar. I know that Windows copied those letters from the original MacOS (who may have copied them from something even earlier); but they are too similar. In fact, I have suggested to many people who live in both worlds (especially ones who are used to Windows) to get something like Keyboard Maestro and remap the "Command" versions to "Control".
For a laptop? What's the point of having one, then?
I wouldn't say that it's a killer deficiency, but the lack of Home/End certainly is annoying.
Maybe because, in my twenty years of using laptops of all persuasions, IMHO, pretty much all laptop keyboards suck for doing serious work in one way or another.
They all seem to have missing or "folded" key functions. Now, I'm sure someone will point to a 75 lb. Alienware luggable that doesn't; but for 99% of the laptop keyboards out there, you'd be better off stashing a real USB or Bluetooth keyboard in your backpack for when you are doing lotsa typing.
I would never develop on a platform where you have to press Alt-Ri---er, Command-Right to do what the Home button does on any other platform.
Your joke is even ill-informed. Everyone that has used a Mac for more than a day knows that OPTION is the "Alt" key, not "Command", like your stupid comment implies.
"Command" has no actual equivalent in any other OS (although that stupid "Windows"-logo key works as Command on "Windows" keyboards). Next time you want to make fun of an OS's modifier-key conventions, at least demonstrate a minimum level of competency.
Not only are there several variants of Emacs for OS X, apparently it is ALREADY INSTALLED. When I use Emacs (not very often, because there are better OS X text editors), I tend to use the Aquamacs GUI version.
This guy needs FIRED from his web developer job immediately; because he obviously doesn't have even the intelligence to breathe, let alone develop code of ANY sort.
That's like saying man up and go see a Justin Bieber concert while prancing around in a field of flowers dressed in all pink.
I think you meant "man up use cat".
Is it possible to have an Apple-related article on /. without wasting fifty linear feet of scrolling-space with off-topic femininity/sexual-orientation slurs?
Seriously. It's getting ridiculous. Stop it.
His arguments against textmate are here, you fucking illiterate dumbass.
Wow, what an erudite comeback.
Sounds like an idiot who can't setup a VM. I mean really: "I need to run Linux, whhaaa!!!!" - set up a VM, you utter muppet. What a total retard. And "emacs" OK fine, but does he not know about Coda?
He IS a total retard. The cool thing about choosing a Mac as a web dev. platform is that you can run nearly every OS on it.
And, I don't know what this meme is about Emacs. I've been running the Aqua-fied verson of Emacs since OS X 10.3. Did it go away or something?
Thank you for the clarification!
I'm glad that at least ONE of my guesses (the search-term one) was correct.
One question though: Why is the latest "G" language reference manual appear to be like 1998? I actually thought the guy was right about G being somewhat deprecated as a term (NOT as a language, though!), based on the fact that I really couldn't find any decent references to G on the NI site that were newer than about 2002 or 2003.
My apologies, and thanks for making one of the coolest-looking languages on the planet!
I haven't worked personally with LabVIEW since 7.1 (and that was on Windows. Ick!); so forgive me if you guys have fixed this; but I always wondered why there isn't a ZOOM in the wiring-diagram view. I hate having to lay out a damn BANNER just to get an overview of a complicated VI