Apple didn't develop it, tried to create a trademark around it, then gave the trademark to Intel. Intel developed 99% of Thunderbolt, and Apple admitted that and handed everything back to them. Apple didn't invent anything, they repackaged an existing technology, just like they did with tablets, smartphones, and many other "inventions" of theirs.
Here's the point: While I freely acknowledge that Intel developed the original Light Peak concept, they have STILL not gotten past what my old Director of Engineering boss would call the "Lab Queen" stage. That is, something that works fine on the lab bench, but, for whatever reason(s), isn't PRACTICAL in the "real world".
Apple did NOT "repackage" LightPeak. They came to Intel and said "Hey, we really like this Light Peak thing; but would like to see if this can be modified to use copper wires rather than fibre optics, because we want to be able to transmit POWER over the same cable and also keep the costs down, and if you'd like, we'll be happy to help. Oh, and we've also got this cool display connector that we would like to use with it, and Steve wants to sell this under the name "Thunderbolt", because he feels that the name "Light Peak" implies "Optical", and besides it's a terrible marketing name."
That isn't "repackaging", that's "an improvement on an existing idea or concept."
Welcome to Engineering.
If that had NOT happened, Light Peak would STILL be "on the bench". Period.
And Apple didn't "admit" that Intel invented Light Peak, and then (sheepishly) "turn over the trademark", as you allege. Apple WANTED Thunderbolt to be an INDUSTRY standard, because they KNEW that was the only way that widespread adoption of the peripheral bus they were betting the next decade or so on would have ANY chance of being SUCCESSFUL.
But you just keep on trying to assign mental illnesses to those who point out the real facts, and focus on the fact that Apple is often not the first seat to the table as far as bleeding-edge tech goes (afterall, HOW many Wintel mobos had USELESS USB connectors on them (what are these for?) LONG before the iMac came along in 1998 and single-handedly changed the way most peripherals attached to most computers); but is often the first one that CORRECTLY brings the software and hardware pieces-parts together to form a PRACTICAL solution.
If you want to call that "Repackaging", then about 95% of ALL engineering of ALL types falls under that definition.
My house is very unpredictably empty. But I've also seen nothing to indicate that Nest can handle that any better than my existing "dumb" thermostat.
It can only detect people if they walk near the thermostat (which is in an upstairs hallway that I don't walk by very often), it can guess at schedules, but I can guarantee it can't guess at ours. I could manually program a schedule in to it, but it would always be wrong, and It would be just as easy to manually adjust the thermostat each time.
Now if they implemented something that looked at multiple google calendars, and assumed that if there was nothing scheduled on any of them that there'd be someone home, then it would be useful, but right now it only works if your house is PREDICTABLY empty.
Exactly.
Or if you have pets, do you really want them to suffer, just to save $50 per year?
Programmable thermostats are really only practical in a fairly small envelope of living patterns and situations.
In terms of energy efficiency, it is smart. The rate at which your house warms and cools, especially as a function of outside temperature, is a much better algorithm for controlling a heating and cooling system.
That's the "D" (Differential) part of the "PID" (Proportional Integral Differential, or "Proportioner Integrator Differentiator") Algorithm that thermostats and heating/cooling plants have been using for, well, since there were mechanical thermostats with that strange little setting inside that was marked with "0.4, 0.6, 0.8..."
Look up "Heat Anticipator" sometime. Rate-of-Change when heating is NOT a novel concept. Far from it.
Yes, but it needs to be a standard way lawsuits start.
There IS a standard way that Lawsuits start. Check out the Rules for Civil Procedure for the Venue (State and County, or Federal and Federal District) in which you are filing.
Hint: It will be near the front of the Rules, like within the first 12 or so...
Who had the idea for Lightpeak? Was it entirely Apple? You try to claim that Lightpeak was entirely Apple's idea, when it is much less clear. Intel invented Lightpeak, Apple and Intel developed Thunderbolt.
Perhaps you shouldn't act like such a delicate flower when someone challenges you?
Idiot.
So, before you were claiming that Intel was saying that Apple "Repackaged" Light Peak
But then, when I PROVED you were WRONG, you try to DOUBLETALK your way out of it by claiming that I said that "Light Peak was "entirely Apple's idea". BULLSHIT.
I said that the only WORKING SOLUTION that involved the Light Peak concept was instigated by Apple and CO-DEVELOPED by Apple (and Intel).
Perhaps you shouldn't try to continue to defend the indefensible.
Do you have any rationalization for that, or was that just a brief outburst of blind prejudice against philosophies that you may not happen to personally believe in?
No, it's an OBSERVATION based on EXPERIENCE, DUMBASS!!!
The entire point of "loser pays" is to discourage people from suing somebody else when their claims are too weak to be sustainable, and to prevent rich corporations that may clearly be in the wrong from using the expense of the legal system to bankrupt a less wealthy opponent before they have had the opportunity to make their case.
You are assuming a perfect Judicial world; where Justice is blind, and the Courts are there for the downtrodden.
Neither is, unfortunately, anywhere CLOSE to being true.
Yes, the defendant screwed up a little bit, but any court that allows a plaintiff to play this kind of game is still broken. What you have here is an apparently well known vexatious litigant, and the solution is to remove his ability to file suits or use the court system at all without prior approval.
Hey, I had a civil case in Marion County thrown out because I was tardy in responding to some Discovery that asked for "Everything". I thought I was being clever in replying that I was still "gathering Everything".
The judge, unfortunately, had no sense of humor...
But I still think he should have at least tried a Motion To Dismiss based on the Plaintiff's record of Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation.
That's one of the reasons why Interrogatories ALWAYS ask you to list ALL Past and Pending Litigation you were involved in. Then you file your Motion To Dismiss, with those Interrogatory Responses as "Exhibit A".
Can you IMAGINE the Judge's eyebrow when he/she read the list of Prior/Current Litigation in which this yayhoo was involved???
Unless Zavodnik has no legal fees which is possible for an abusive litigant. If you look up news articles on him it looks like he files his own lawsuits without an attorney.
And, it sounds like he's doing a pretty damn good job of it, too.
Presumably, if your case was valid, then you wouldn't actually lose. If you do not believe in the merits of your own case, then obviously you do not sue That's the entire point.
Stop it! You're KILLING me! AND THE REST OF SLASHDOT!!!
It would also discourage little people with limited resources from filing legitimate lawsuits. Who would want to sue a big corp or even a rich guy who screwed them over when they could be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal fees?
Yep. Because when Megacorp or Big Gummint walks in there with 10 lawyers each billing $500 an hour, you (The Little Guy) might as well cut your losses and file a verbal Motion To Dismiss right then and there.
Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.
No need for change, then. There is already ample caselaw to support that under the "American Rule".
The *ONLY* reason to believe that you would lose when you otherwise believe you have a legitimate case against somebody is if you actually doubt the legitimacy of your case in the first place... in which case you do not actually sue, which is the entire point.
You OBVIOUSLY have never sued ANYONE or ANYTHING of POWER.
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
Loser Pays just means that NO ONE will ever sue a large Corporation, or the Government, again.
Or maybe that's what you want.
Sorry; but the "American Rule" (everyone pays their own costs unless bad-faith can be proven) is a LOT more egalitarian than "Loser Pays" (the "English Rule").
It doesn't. His cased was dismissed from small claims, because he threw out the evidence (printer). He refiled in Superior Court with a bunch of new complaints. He didn't sue for $30,000, what he did was send a Request for Admission to the opponent requesting he admit to owing the 30,000 or the 300,000 or the 600,000. Marion County has a rule that if you don't respond to a Request for Admission in 30 days then you are presumed to have admitted the fact at issue. That was the plaintiff's game here. Send a bunch of requests and hope they don't respond.
Well, then it was the Defendant's tardiness in Responding to the Requests For Admission, and/or NOT doing any Discovery of his own, and/or for NOT filing for Summary Judgment or even a Judgment On The Pleadings, based on the admitted total lack of evidence on the part of the Plaintiff.
IANAL; but I live in Marion County, and have battled with the Superior and Circuit Courts here pro se on more than one occasion.
"This copper-based version of the Light Peak concept was co-developed by Apple and Intel. "
This is doubly-important, because, according to the same Articleyou linked to, Intel and Industry-Partners for the original Optical-Based "Light Peak" are "still developing optical Thunderbolt hardware and cables.[25]"
So, it looks to me like Apple not only had a hand in TB Development, but are the ONLY ones that have come up with the idea for a WORKING SOLUTION for its implementation.
Next time you want to throw "facts" in my face, try to make sure they actually support your point, not mine.
I dont normally defend MS, but when your OS is in 95% of all the computers in the world you cant get away with these changes in the way Apple can. When Apple has ATM's running on OS X etc.. I'll give them credit for keeping up to date. Windows' main selling point is its Achilles heel. Backward compatibility always sets MS back.
Sorry, but the rubric of "backwards compatibility" won't work this time.
The fact is, when Windows started down the 64 bit path, they COULD have done what Apple did with OS X, but they chose not to. Instead, they drew a big, fat NON-COMPATIBILITY line in the sand between 32 and 64 bit land, and, far too often, made USERS have to do the legwork.
Apple, OTOH, made the whole thing COMPLETELY SEAMLESS to all but the smallest-subset of users, by clever OS witchery (which I freely admit I do not know for sure how it works, but I assume has something to do with having a 32 bit and 64 bit version or entry point to each API call).
That has nothing to do with "backward compatibility"; because Apple was able to do its SEAMLESS 32 to 64 bit transition while RETAINING COMPATIBILITY with 32 bit Applications and in most cases, even drivers, as if nothing ever happened.
No need for "Program Files (x86)", separate 32 and 64 bit Installers and Apps, let alone drivers.
Sorry, painless "Backward Compatibility" is EXACTLY what OS X accomplished for nearly all users and all applications, and EXACTLY what Windows did NOT give.
It has a LOT more to do with good OS design than it does with the size of the install base or number and/or breadth of applications.
I wish I could find a screenshot of what you are talking about with KDE's "Panels".
BTW, I noticed you other Post about trying to get KDE to Compile under OS X, and I must say, it seems you are REALLY Swimming Upstream here. I mean, I find TONS of references and even solutions for making KDE Look and even Act like OS X; but really nothing on making OS X look and act like KDE. JUS' sayin'...;-) but, hey, there isn't anything wrong with swimming upstream: You want what you want. I get that.
Having said that, were you planning on having separate SPACES on each Monitor, or simply having an "Extended Desktop" across both monitors?
I have just done a little more research; but here are a few things you might like. Don't take this as "my final answer"; but rather a few more things to check out along the way, ok?:
If you really like that Win 7-esque "Start Menu and Taskbar" look, this is your guy (if it has proper Multimonitor/Multi-Space support). It looks like it emulates the Taskbar's "Each Document Has An Icon" thing, too.
Also, Did you look at this thing for Focus-Follows-Mouse? You mentioned trying a Terminal Command; but the thread that talked about those said that the Codetek thing I linked here was "the only thing that really worked".
I think that Focus-Folliws-Mouse thing, along with this Menubar-Per-Window thing would get around your objection to OS X's Single Menubar.
A couple of well-liked Alternatives to the Dock I found:
One thing is for sure, you CANNOT just disable the OS X Dock. It is actually responsible for some stuff you (and the OS) don't want to do without. But with a couple of Terminal commands, you CAN make it really, really tiny, and auto-hide it with a really long time-before-unhide. So, essentially, you can get rid of it for all intents and purposes.
As I mentioned in the other post, it's 32 bit compiler binary... not a binary only capable of producing 32 bit binaries. MSVC will happily produce 64 bit binaries. This isn't laziness. It actually requires more discipline from their compiler team to fit the compilation process within 32-bit memory space per running compiler process.
Ok, then what about all the OTHER 32 to 64 bit pain that is USER-FACING? Separate versions of Apps, separate versions of OSes, FFS.
Lazy, Lazy, Lazy.
Oh, and if it's so easy for 32 bit VS to crank out a 64 bit binary, then why, oh, why don't they just do that for VS itself???
Answer: Because then they would have to MAINTAIN separate 32 and 64 bit Installers, yada yada.
As I said, OS X solved ALL this YEARS ago. MS copies everything ELSE from OS X, why not that?
How ridiculously broken does your overall OS and Application Development design have to be to make the transition from 32 to 64 bit this hard?
I'm REALLY not Trolling; but OS X went through an entire CPU ARCHITECTURE change (and actually TWO, if you count iOS as an offshoot of OS X, and THREE if you count the "Classic (Blue Box)"/Carbon APIs), PLUS handled 32 to 64 bit transition (some of it happening at the SAME TIME as the PPC to Intel Transition), and almost ALL OS X users noticed NOT A SINGLE THING.
In fact, with OS X, the ONLY place I have heard of ANY 32 to 64 bit pains were with Audio Unit Plugins. There might be a few others, but it CERTAINLY wasn't front-page news anywhere.
Can you IMAGINE how wonderfully that all would have gone with Microsoft?
Oh, and NT is supposedly every bit as CPU-Agnostic as NeXTStep (afterall, there was even a version of Windows NT for PowerPC); so I really don't want to hear anything about how much harder it is with Windows.
MS has a bunch of THE LAZIEST DEVELOPERS ON THE PLANET.
t's very possible to provide adequate security that is protected against snooping.
Oh, I know.
The reason I know that KEELOQ is such a joke is that I developed a keyless entry system for delivery trucks (think "UPS"). After researching KEELOQ, which was the easiest path to victory (the place I was doing this for was a BIG Microchip house), I decided to use AES-128 instead (there are actually some PICs that have hardware AES-128 encryption engines, saving me the trouble of getting that working (and hoping I didn't introduce any vulnerabilities)).
Worked great, and was MUCH more secure than the typical KEELOQ trash that almost ALL vehicle Keyfobs use (even now, with TONS of articles on KEELOQ's vulnerabilites available on interwebs).
Lots of people have long had the dream of putting together a chatbot that would represent them in online forums...
Well I'm going the opposite route. I'm attaching a chatbot to my source code editor for work, leaving me free all day to do nothing but post in online forums!
As for the work quality, I wouldn't worry about that - one of the neural inputs is StackOverflow recent answers.
On a tin-foil-hat conspiratorial note, anyone else wonder if someone has weaponized Zika and seeded the world with carrier mosquitos, to create an extinction-level event for the human race? Thought's occurred to me..
That would be more "fun" with Ebola than Zika. AFAIK, Zika isn't immediately deadly like Ebola.
I think you have to wait a generation to see the REAL deleterious effects of Zika.
I like the idea that it can be instantly deactivated, and it should be easy to allow for more fine grained access control. I
So, you REALLY want your car to have to do a wireless (cellular) internet transaction before it will let you in, while the three thugs walking up the street get closer, ever closer?
No thanks. I'll continue to stick my physical key into the physical door lock, thank you. MUCH quicker, and nothing to sniff out of the air (considering the (laughable) "security" of the common Microchip KEELOQ protocol used in about ALL of the wireless key-fobs for cars, I NEVER use my keyfob to UNlock my car door. EVER).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple didn't develop it, tried to create a trademark around it, then gave the trademark to Intel. Intel developed 99% of Thunderbolt, and Apple admitted that and handed everything back to them. Apple didn't invent anything, they repackaged an existing technology, just like they did with tablets, smartphones, and many other "inventions" of theirs.
Here's the point: While I freely acknowledge that Intel developed the original Light Peak concept, they have STILL not gotten past what my old Director of Engineering boss would call the "Lab Queen" stage. That is, something that works fine on the lab bench, but, for whatever reason(s), isn't PRACTICAL in the "real world".
Apple did NOT "repackage" LightPeak. They came to Intel and said "Hey, we really like this Light Peak thing; but would like to see if this can be modified to use copper wires rather than fibre optics, because we want to be able to transmit POWER over the same cable and also keep the costs down, and if you'd like, we'll be happy to help. Oh, and we've also got this cool display connector that we would like to use with it, and Steve wants to sell this under the name "Thunderbolt", because he feels that the name "Light Peak" implies "Optical", and besides it's a terrible marketing name."
That isn't "repackaging", that's "an improvement on an existing idea or concept."
Welcome to Engineering.
If that had NOT happened, Light Peak would STILL be "on the bench". Period.
And Apple didn't "admit" that Intel invented Light Peak, and then (sheepishly) "turn over the trademark", as you allege. Apple WANTED Thunderbolt to be an INDUSTRY standard, because they KNEW that was the only way that widespread adoption of the peripheral bus they were betting the next decade or so on would have ANY chance of being SUCCESSFUL.
But you just keep on trying to assign mental illnesses to those who point out the real facts, and focus on the fact that Apple is often not the first seat to the table as far as bleeding-edge tech goes (afterall, HOW many Wintel mobos had USELESS USB connectors on them (what are these for?) LONG before the iMac came along in 1998 and single-handedly changed the way most peripherals attached to most computers); but is often the first one that CORRECTLY brings the software and hardware pieces-parts together to form a PRACTICAL solution.
If you want to call that "Repackaging", then about 95% of ALL engineering of ALL types falls under that definition.
My house is very unpredictably empty. But I've also seen nothing to indicate that Nest can handle that any better than my existing "dumb" thermostat. It can only detect people if they walk near the thermostat (which is in an upstairs hallway that I don't walk by very often), it can guess at schedules, but I can guarantee it can't guess at ours. I could manually program a schedule in to it, but it would always be wrong, and It would be just as easy to manually adjust the thermostat each time.
Now if they implemented something that looked at multiple google calendars, and assumed that if there was nothing scheduled on any of them that there'd be someone home, then it would be useful, but right now it only works if your house is PREDICTABLY empty.
Exactly.
Or if you have pets, do you really want them to suffer, just to save $50 per year?
Programmable thermostats are really only practical in a fairly small envelope of living patterns and situations.
In terms of energy efficiency, it is smart. The rate at which your house warms and cools, especially as a function of outside temperature, is a much better algorithm for controlling a heating and cooling system.
That's the "D" (Differential) part of the "PID" (Proportional Integral Differential, or "Proportioner Integrator Differentiator") Algorithm that thermostats and heating/cooling plants have been using for, well, since there were mechanical thermostats with that strange little setting inside that was marked with "0.4, 0.6, 0.8..."
Look up "Heat Anticipator" sometime. Rate-of-Change when heating is NOT a novel concept. Far from it.
Yes, but it needs to be a standard way lawsuits start.
There IS a standard way that Lawsuits start. Check out the Rules for Civil Procedure for the Venue (State and County, or Federal and Federal District) in which you are filing.
Hint: It will be near the front of the Rules, like within the first 12 or so...
Who had the idea for Lightpeak? Was it entirely Apple? You try to claim that Lightpeak was entirely Apple's idea, when it is much less clear. Intel invented Lightpeak, Apple and Intel developed Thunderbolt.
Perhaps you shouldn't act like such a delicate flower when someone challenges you?
Idiot.
So, before you were claiming that Intel was saying that Apple "Repackaged" Light Peak
But then, when I PROVED you were WRONG, you try to DOUBLETALK your way out of it by claiming that I said that "Light Peak was "entirely Apple's idea". BULLSHIT.
I said that the only WORKING SOLUTION that involved the Light Peak concept was instigated by Apple and CO-DEVELOPED by Apple (and Intel).
Perhaps you shouldn't try to continue to defend the indefensible.
Do you have any rationalization for that, or was that just a brief outburst of blind prejudice against philosophies that you may not happen to personally believe in?
No, it's an OBSERVATION based on EXPERIENCE, DUMBASS!!!
The entire point of "loser pays" is to discourage people from suing somebody else when their claims are too weak to be sustainable, and to prevent rich corporations that may clearly be in the wrong from using the expense of the legal system to bankrupt a less wealthy opponent before they have had the opportunity to make their case.
You are assuming a perfect Judicial world; where Justice is blind, and the Courts are there for the downtrodden.
Neither is, unfortunately, anywhere CLOSE to being true.
You'll find out one day. Trust me.
Yes, the defendant screwed up a little bit, but any court that allows a plaintiff to play this kind of game is still broken. What you have here is an apparently well known vexatious litigant, and the solution is to remove his ability to file suits or use the court system at all without prior approval.
Hey, I had a civil case in Marion County thrown out because I was tardy in responding to some Discovery that asked for "Everything". I thought I was being clever in replying that I was still "gathering Everything".
The judge, unfortunately, had no sense of humor...
But I still think he should have at least tried a Motion To Dismiss based on the Plaintiff's record of Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation.
That's one of the reasons why Interrogatories ALWAYS ask you to list ALL Past and Pending Litigation you were involved in. Then you file your Motion To Dismiss, with those Interrogatory Responses as "Exhibit A".
Can you IMAGINE the Judge's eyebrow when he/she read the list of Prior/Current Litigation in which this yayhoo was involved???
Unless Zavodnik has no legal fees which is possible for an abusive litigant. If you look up news articles on him it looks like he files his own lawsuits without an attorney.
And, it sounds like he's doing a pretty damn good job of it, too.
Jus' sayin'...
Presumably, if your case was valid, then you wouldn't actually lose. If you do not believe in the merits of your own case, then obviously you do not sue That's the entire point.
Stop it! You're KILLING me! AND THE REST OF SLASHDOT!!!
It would also discourage little people with limited resources from filing legitimate lawsuits. Who would want to sue a big corp or even a rich guy who screwed them over when they could be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal fees?
Yep. Because when Megacorp or Big Gummint walks in there with 10 lawyers each billing $500 an hour, you (The Little Guy) might as well cut your losses and file a verbal Motion To Dismiss right then and there.
Which is EXACTLY what "they" want...
Let the judge award "loser pays" only after meeting a high threshold. Such as in situations where no rational person would consider it a legitimate dispute.
No need for change, then. There is already ample caselaw to support that under the "American Rule".
Only if you fail to prove it.
Why would you fail to prove it? Especially if you aren't paying if you win?
Just stop it.
You're WAY past embarassing yourself with your idealistic notions.
The *ONLY* reason to believe that you would lose when you otherwise believe you have a legitimate case against somebody is if you actually doubt the legitimacy of your case in the first place... in which case you do not actually sue, which is the entire point.
You OBVIOUSLY have never sued ANYONE or ANYTHING of POWER.
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
Loser Pays just means that NO ONE will ever sue a large Corporation, or the Government, again.
Or maybe that's what you want.
Sorry; but the "American Rule" (everyone pays their own costs unless bad-faith can be proven) is a LOT more egalitarian than "Loser Pays" (the "English Rule").
It doesn't. His cased was dismissed from small claims, because he threw out the evidence (printer). He refiled in Superior Court with a bunch of new complaints. He didn't sue for $30,000, what he did was send a Request for Admission to the opponent requesting he admit to owing the 30,000 or the 300,000 or the 600,000. Marion County has a rule that if you don't respond to a Request for Admission in 30 days then you are presumed to have admitted the fact at issue. That was the plaintiff's game here. Send a bunch of requests and hope they don't respond.
Well, then it was the Defendant's tardiness in Responding to the Requests For Admission, and/or NOT doing any Discovery of his own, and/or for NOT filing for Summary Judgment or even a Judgment On The Pleadings, based on the admitted total lack of evidence on the part of the Plaintiff.
IANAL; but I live in Marion County, and have battled with the Superior and Circuit Courts here pro se on more than one occasion.
Now, who says Apple just repackages other people's ideas?
Intel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh, is "Repackaging" what you call Joint Development?
From the "Description" section of the article you just linked-to:
"This copper-based version of the Light Peak concept was co-developed by Apple and Intel. "
This is doubly-important, because, according to the same Article you linked to, Intel and Industry-Partners for the original Optical-Based "Light Peak" are "still developing optical Thunderbolt hardware and cables.[25]"
So, it looks to me like Apple not only had a hand in TB Development, but are the ONLY ones that have come up with the idea for a WORKING SOLUTION for its implementation.
Next time you want to throw "facts" in my face, try to make sure they actually support your point, not mine.
Idiot.
I dont normally defend MS, but when your OS is in 95% of all the computers in the world you cant get away with these changes in the way Apple can. When Apple has ATM's running on OS X etc.. I'll give them credit for keeping up to date. Windows' main selling point is its Achilles heel. Backward compatibility always sets MS back.
Sorry, but the rubric of "backwards compatibility" won't work this time.
The fact is, when Windows started down the 64 bit path, they COULD have done what Apple did with OS X, but they chose not to. Instead, they drew a big, fat NON-COMPATIBILITY line in the sand between 32 and 64 bit land, and, far too often, made USERS have to do the legwork.
Apple, OTOH, made the whole thing COMPLETELY SEAMLESS to all but the smallest-subset of users, by clever OS witchery (which I freely admit I do not know for sure how it works, but I assume has something to do with having a 32 bit and 64 bit version or entry point to each API call).
That has nothing to do with "backward compatibility"; because Apple was able to do its SEAMLESS 32 to 64 bit transition while RETAINING COMPATIBILITY with 32 bit Applications and in most cases, even drivers, as if nothing ever happened.
No need for "Program Files (x86)", separate 32 and 64 bit Installers and Apps, let alone drivers.
Sorry, painless "Backward Compatibility" is EXACTLY what OS X accomplished for nearly all users and all applications, and EXACTLY what Windows did NOT give.
It has a LOT more to do with good OS design than it does with the size of the install base or number and/or breadth of applications.
orry for the delayed reply, been very busy.
No worries! I'm much the same...
;-) but, hey, there isn't anything wrong with swimming upstream: You want what you want. I get that.
I wish I could find a screenshot of what you are talking about with KDE's "Panels".
BTW, I noticed you other Post about trying to get KDE to Compile under OS X, and I must say, it seems you are REALLY Swimming Upstream here. I mean, I find TONS of references and even solutions for making KDE Look and even Act like OS X; but really nothing on making OS X look and act like KDE. JUS' sayin'...
Having said that, were you planning on having separate SPACES on each Monitor, or simply having an "Extended Desktop" across both monitors?
I have just done a little more research; but here are a few things you might like. Don't take this as "my final answer"; but rather a few more things to check out along the way, ok?:
If you really like that Win 7-esque "Start Menu and Taskbar" look, this is your guy (if it has proper Multimonitor/Multi-Space support). It looks like it emulates the Taskbar's "Each Document Has An Icon" thing, too.
Also, Did you look at this thing for Focus-Follows-Mouse? You mentioned trying a Terminal Command; but the thread that talked about those said that the Codetek thing I linked here was "the only thing that really worked".
I think that Focus-Folliws-Mouse thing, along with this Menubar-Per-Window thing would get around your objection to OS X's Single Menubar.
A couple of well-liked Alternatives to the Dock I found:
Dock-It. And DragThing.
One thing is for sure, you CANNOT just disable the OS X Dock. It is actually responsible for some stuff you (and the OS) don't want to do without. But with a couple of Terminal commands, you CAN make it really, really tiny, and auto-hide it with a really long time-before-unhide. So, essentially, you can get rid of it for all intents and purposes.
As I mentioned in the other post, it's 32 bit compiler binary... not a binary only capable of producing 32 bit binaries. MSVC will happily produce 64 bit binaries. This isn't laziness. It actually requires more discipline from their compiler team to fit the compilation process within 32-bit memory space per running compiler process.
Ok, then what about all the OTHER 32 to 64 bit pain that is USER-FACING? Separate versions of Apps, separate versions of OSes, FFS.
Lazy, Lazy, Lazy.
Oh, and if it's so easy for 32 bit VS to crank out a 64 bit binary, then why, oh, why don't they just do that for VS itself???
Answer: Because then they would have to MAINTAIN separate 32 and 64 bit Installers, yada yada.
As I said, OS X solved ALL this YEARS ago. MS copies everything ELSE from OS X, why not that?
How ridiculously broken does your overall OS and Application Development design have to be to make the transition from 32 to 64 bit this hard?
I'm REALLY not Trolling; but OS X went through an entire CPU ARCHITECTURE change (and actually TWO, if you count iOS as an offshoot of OS X, and THREE if you count the "Classic (Blue Box)"/Carbon APIs), PLUS handled 32 to 64 bit transition (some of it happening at the SAME TIME as the PPC to Intel Transition), and almost ALL OS X users noticed NOT A SINGLE THING.
In fact, with OS X, the ONLY place I have heard of ANY 32 to 64 bit pains were with Audio Unit Plugins. There might be a few others, but it CERTAINLY wasn't front-page news anywhere.
Can you IMAGINE how wonderfully that all would have gone with Microsoft?
Oh, and NT is supposedly every bit as CPU-Agnostic as NeXTStep (afterall, there was even a version of Windows NT for PowerPC); so I really don't want to hear anything about how much harder it is with Windows.
MS has a bunch of THE LAZIEST DEVELOPERS ON THE PLANET.
t's very possible to provide adequate security that is protected against snooping.
Oh, I know.
The reason I know that KEELOQ is such a joke is that I developed a keyless entry system for delivery trucks (think "UPS"). After researching KEELOQ, which was the easiest path to victory (the place I was doing this for was a BIG Microchip house), I decided to use AES-128 instead (there are actually some PICs that have hardware AES-128 encryption engines, saving me the trouble of getting that working (and hoping I didn't introduce any vulnerabilities)).
Worked great, and was MUCH more secure than the typical KEELOQ trash that almost ALL vehicle Keyfobs use (even now, with TONS of articles on KEELOQ's vulnerabilites available on interwebs).
I DO like your idea of a "temporary key", though.
Lots of people have long had the dream of putting together a chatbot that would represent them in online forums...
Well I'm going the opposite route. I'm attaching a chatbot to my source code editor for work, leaving me free all day to do nothing but post in online forums!
As for the work quality, I wouldn't worry about that - one of the neural inputs is StackOverflow recent answers.
I love it!
The MadLibs approach to coding!
On a tin-foil-hat conspiratorial note, anyone else wonder if someone has weaponized Zika and seeded the world with carrier mosquitos, to create an extinction-level event for the human race? Thought's occurred to me..
That would be more "fun" with Ebola than Zika. AFAIK, Zika isn't immediately deadly like Ebola.
I think you have to wait a generation to see the REAL deleterious effects of Zika.
I like the idea that it can be instantly deactivated, and it should be easy to allow for more fine grained access control. I
So, you REALLY want your car to have to do a wireless (cellular) internet transaction before it will let you in, while the three thugs walking up the street get closer, ever closer?
No thanks. I'll continue to stick my physical key into the physical door lock, thank you. MUCH quicker, and nothing to sniff out of the air (considering the (laughable) "security" of the common Microchip KEELOQ protocol used in about ALL of the wireless key-fobs for cars, I NEVER use my keyfob to UNlock my car door. EVER).