You might be interested to know that there were some on the original Macintosh team (notably, the late, great Jef Raskin) that were lobbying (hard!) for an up to FIVE button-mouse.
I highly doubt that. Raskin didn't want a mouse on the Mac at all:
If that article you linked didn't purport to be written by Andy Hertzfeld, I would have immediately thought it was b.s.
I couldn't find a reference that agreed with my memory, true; but I do offer this Slashdot thread on the subject of "Why Apple makes a 1 button mouse". There are several references to the "Left/Right Click confusion", and other posts that generally support what I was saying (nevermind the possibly misremembered Raskin reference. my brain is old and grizzled...)
My guess is that the DOJ wanted the precedent - this is the Alinsky way, "never let a crisis go to waste". They thought that if people had the specter of a new terrorist attack hanging over their head's they'd be more malleable. Then they could use it for all sorts of purposes like tax evasion - as Obama clearly stated he wanted to do.
Turns out they were wrong, and the public and the industry didn't go along as easily as they'd hoped. Rather than suffer a judicial defeat which may be counterproductive to their aims, they just "find" an alternative at the 11th hour and move on.
My feeling is that the FBI saw that their chances in court were not looking great, so decided to accept the outside offers (NSA?) for cracking the phone that had in fact been available to them all this time. The excuse that they no longer need to crack the phone also allows them to back down without losing face.
You are exactly right. Nothing else makes sense. And, the Gummint is notorious for last-second things like this.
Yeah, we know. There were third party mice by the time the Mac Plus become popular.
I am talking about the priesthood at Apple accepting a second mouse button.
I bet there are still a some of them holding out.
You might be interested to know that there were some on the original Macintosh team (notably, the late, great Jef Raskin) that were lobbying (hard!) for an up to FIVE button-mouse.
However, in usability studies conducted (I think by Apple, but maybe others. Can't remember), they ALL concluded that a single-button mouse was universally easier for users to understand, even though they had to learn things like the double-click gesture. Here's a little of that history.
And think about it: How many times have you had a non-technical (or sometimes even technically-savvy) User ask you "Do you mean 'Left-Click' or 'Right-Click'?" A single-button mouse neatly removes that "mental speed-bump".
You also have to keep in mind that in 1981, when the Mac was first being developed (and these usability tests conducted), virtually NO ONE outside of Xerox PARC or SRI (I think it was) had ever seen Doug Englebert's crazy "mouse" thing. So it was a different time. Now, we think it's just silly that people couldn't deal with a two (or more) button mouse; but not then.
But the "Single-Button Mouse" meme is just like the "Apple Stole the GUI from PARC" lore; it just won't ever die.
Personally, this seems like a configuration problem by the Vendor (McDonald's, etc), not an ApplePay issue. The fact that it works flawlessly at one POS terminal and not at another screams "setup issue".
And WTF, Over, does Siri have to do with this???
FFS, Slashdot Editors have GOT to be the bottom-of-the-barrel...
I'm thinking the quickest way might to be punished. They do send people there as punishment, right? I guess you could sit in Oklahoma and wait for a tornado.
Or wait until they invent matter/energy transporters.
And yet there are all sorts of things that simply don't communicate with anything other than Windows. Point being, it's not universally so. I'm not sure why you'd argue against that. Well, except you didn't.
I didn't skip it at all. I just pointed out that it was a non-issue; because it was easy to virtualize (or dual-boot) Windows when need be, and still retain the advantages of using a Mac.
Strawmen are easy to beat but they don't impress me. Come back when you can program my sister's insulin pump and her TPN equipment or her morphine pump.Come back when you can program many of the hand-held devices with crazy ports.
You can not. Why you'd pretend otherwise is beyond me.
Oh, I see what your problem is: You are confusing "programming" (i.e., using a computer to set some parameters in the software running on a device with an embedded microcontroller), vs. "Programming", meaning "Software Development", which was the theme of TFA. My Post was regarding the latter. So, I am not "pretending" anything. What you are describing is as far from "Embedded Development" as creating a Playlist on your iPod is from writing the OS for that same iPod.
And, before you pat yourself on the back with a response of "No other OS can do it either!" I'd like to point out that that's exactly my point.
Actually, I am not going to say "No other OS can do it, either!"; because that simply doesn't apply. If I want to "program" the SETTINGS on your sister's TPN infusion pump, these days, that would likely be done one of three ways: 1) Web Interface; 2) Terminal App; 3) Proprietary Software.
In the first instance, that would likely be platform-agnostic, unless the infusion pump uses some crazy DirectX plugin crap (for no earthly reason). In the second instance, a Terminal App is a Terminal App. Available on every platform. And in the third instance, that MAY be platform-specific; but, on a Mac, more than likely would be available through virtualization or dual-booting. If the infusion pump was REALLY old, it MIGHT only have a serial port (not a show-stopper; and if you are talking about a Windows laptop built in this century, it probably doesn't have an RS-232 port or Parallel port any more than a Mac laptop); but, more than likely, the infusion pump has either an Ethernet port and/or an USB port; so again, "ports" are beginning to matter less and less as time goes on; and as computer equipment of all platforms and manufacturers coalesces into only offering USB Thunderbolt/USB-C, Ethernet and, and, NOTHING.
By the way, a friend of mine was doing some consulting that involved working with (I believe) a Gas Chromatograph. They needed to replace the broken Windows machine that ran this mega-dollar piece of equipment, who's software ran ONLY on XP.
Do you know what they HAD to do? Use a Mac mini, running XP under Bootcamp (yes, I know that isn't possible now). Why? Because EVERY SINGLE WINDOWS MACHINE THEY COULD PURCHASE (new) had NO DRIVERS that would work with XP, because they had all moved on to (at that time, Windows 7).
So, there's at least one anecdote where a Mac actually had BETTER Windows Compatibility than a "real" Windows machine.
But as I said, it is YOU that trotted out a Strawman; in that you (conveniently or ignorantly) confused "Programming" (as in "Programming your VCR) with "Programming" meaning "Embedded DEVELOPMENT".
In which case, I'd disagree. OS X is no better than any other modern OS. It is different but it's certainly not better. It might be better for your needs but it is not better for everyone's needs. So, if robust is some subjective word meant to inflate ego by affirmation it has no value here.
However, you'll note that they did answer what it meant to them. And that was not what they said. I'm not sure why you'd suggest they meant different than they said they meant.
Actually, I wrote my reply before reading their response; so kindly disregard my uniformed drivel...;-)
Hmm... Okay... Define for me, if you don't mind, "robust." How is OS X more robust than, well... Any OS? 'Cause I'm not seeing that. I'm not seeing how it's more robust than any other modern operating system. I wouldn't say it is better - nor would I say it is worse. I'd say it does some things differently. There is nothing that I've ever found that I can't do on any operating system - where end results are the goal. Some just make it a easier or harder but the end is the same.
Note: I'm not an operating system zealot or anything - I've never met an OS I didn't like. I've met some I didn't prefer and some interfaces I didn't like. I really am curious as to what you mean by robust.
Define the term "robust" in this context. "Robust" is a term that people simply take as a synonym for "better" most of the time.
I'm thinking things that need to be programmed like embedded stuff. Some of those ports aren't going to be working all that well via a Mac, they may not have the communications stack already done for them, they may have to do it over the odd ports that Apple includes, so it might be problematic.
It really does matter, I should think. More so in a VM where you're dealing with virtualized ports. It's very much an edge case area but it does negate the premise that it's always the case. I don't think any other OS is going to be easy (or even doable) with any other OS entirely either. There's stuff out there that simply isn't going to work on a Mac. It's not important - it just negates that the rule is always true. (Though I suppose one could almost always start wiring and patching new hardware in - but I think it's no longer a Mac at that point.)
Except, as an embedded developer with nearly 4 decades of paid experience, I used Macs for embedded development for years and years, for both my hardware and software Dev. Platform.
Sometimes it was a bit of a challenge back n the PowerPC days; but the benefits were worth it. Fortunately, back then I as doing mostly Assembly Language development, and so the Toolchain was pretty simple. And now, it is actually much, much, easier. And in the occasional case where you have some tool that only wants to work with a particular environment, it will ALWAYS be Windows, and modern Macs make that a no-brainer. As for hardware and ports, almost everything needed is USB, so lack of ports is generally the most "non" of the non-issues. And if you have to use a Windows VM to talk to your scope or FPGA programmer, then it's just a click away; and with things like VMWare's Unity mode, you hardly even notice that you are running Windows apps, anyway.
So, as Developer after Developer has noted in this most atypically "civil" Slashdot tread, using Macs means you have freedom to use whatever OS works best, plus you still have access to best-in-class documentation tools, and with a system that is stable, doesn't bug you and call for attention and fiddling the vast majority of the time, and on hardware that even most of the detractors admit is second-to-none.
So, in response to your statement, it is actually MORE THAN EVER a Mac for Embedded Development at this point.
Some people are helpless regardless of what OS they're using. They require constant care and feeding even if they are using an Apple tablet. Even Apple products won't "save" those kinds of people. They are entirely hopeless.
Oh, you are SOOOO right!
And they're the first ones to whine "I thought Macs were supposed to be EEEE-ZEEE..."
Wasn't MacOS supposed to have been "the desktop Unix" 10 or 15 years ago. Wasn't this supposed to have happened already rather than it just happening now?
OS X (not MacOS) IS "The Destop Unix", and has been so since 2000. That's SIXTEEN YEARS.
Welcome to the party; sorry your invitation got lost in the mail...
i said, Windows is equivalent to the incandescent light bulb.
Linux approximates the CFL, and OS X could be the LED.
Or people using Apple products are just full of themselves and think they can program.
I have nearly 4 decades of embedded developer experience, and the vast majority of that has been using Apple products.
And why? Because with one computer, I could have my Dev. Tools, plus an entire Desktop Publishing chain for Documentation, and real MS Office for participating in the rest of the "business" stuff.
And that was even back in the early 90s. Now the Mac is a even a more obvious choice for most Development work.
President Obama is being improperly advised and/or technically ignorant at best, and being an enabler to the power-hungry and/or a power-grabber himself. Note that I voted for this man, twice! Wishing I'd not have done so now.
I voted for him twice, too. And I, too was extremely disheartened to hear that he weighed-in on the side of the FBI.
However, as far as Encryption goes, I would be very surprised if the President is any more informed than my dog, and is simply parroting the bullshit that is being fed him by the real criminals here: The "experts" in the FBI (you know, the same organization that didn't know not to reset the AppleID password) that are lying through their teeth, just to get an extremely dangerous precedent set.
With that in mind, I don't believe that any President would be savvy enough to go against the advice of his/her Gummint "Experts".
Then again, if it were my domain, you wouldn't have the option to begin with. That's a default policy right there.
I work for a small Mom and Pop (literally) Software Consultancy. Nearly half of the employees are Developers, and know better than to do stupid stuff. So, we are given pretty much carte-blanche to tromp around in our Domain, because we are all careful, and don't shit where we eat.
I understand that turning off Windows Updates is a pretty risky thing to do; but so is having your OS ripped out from under you by those-that-think-that-THEY-own-your-computer.
I didn't say I turned of my (two) AV apps, or my Firewall. I simply turned-off Windows Updates. Now if MS could be TRUSTED to actually categorize their Updates CORRECTLY (instead of lying about the Windows 10 "forced update" ones), I would be more-than-happy to let them continue to push me SECURITY Updates.
"...the iOS malware exploits a flaw in Apple's DRM software"
O The Irony.
Trying to protect their profits creates a situation that will almost certainly cost them money.
Perhaps you have forgotten this, which clearly explains Apple's actual stance on DRM.
There wouldn't have BEEN a digital music market if Apple hadn't figured out a reasonable compromise on DRM.
And, if you recall, Apple DROPPED DRM from their Music files YEARS ago. FairPlay is just hanging around for the people who never updated their old DRM-ed music files.
However *** IF *** the court forces Apple to comply then Apple should make the modified iOS. This way they can lock this modified iOS to the one device in question. [emphasis added]
I must have missed the Press Release where Apple stated that that was even possible. I really wish people would stop parroting and perpetuating that canard.
Of course Apple is not going to state this, they are in PR/legal mode, trying to position and frame the debate. Saying that when they are altering the source code to avoid passcode entry delays and such that they could also add code that checks the device's UDID and refuses to run if it is not the device in question, well that's counterproductive to the narrative they are trying to create. The narrative of "global havoc".
So, IOW, you're just guessing.
And, so, what about all the industry-leaders and even government intelligence experts that are lining up in public support of Apple like planes at an airport. What exactly do they (esp. the intelligence experts) have to gain supporting a position that is contrary to the DOJ?
No problem. I was really tired when I typed and I was completely open to the idea that I left out a word or mangled an edit to screw up what I was trying to say.:-)
And I think I was getting up to pee in the middle of the night when I replied; so I was similarly-mentally-challenged, LOL!
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt that. Raskin didn't want a mouse on the Mac at all:
He was dead set against the mouse as well, preferring dedicated meta-keys to do the pointing.
I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.
If that article you linked didn't purport to be written by Andy Hertzfeld, I would have immediately thought it was b.s.
I couldn't find a reference that agreed with my memory, true; but I do offer this Slashdot thread on the subject of "Why Apple makes a 1 button mouse". There are several references to the "Left/Right Click confusion", and other posts that generally support what I was saying (nevermind the possibly misremembered Raskin reference. my brain is old and grizzled...)
NO, next step is to find a whole load of "evidence" on the phone that could have prevented something or other.
"See, this is what Apple's delay has cost us!"
You mean like the Belgium bombings today?
And yes, I do believe the FBI would go that far to manufacture a point.
My guess is that the DOJ wanted the precedent - this is the Alinsky way, "never let a crisis go to waste". They thought that if people had the specter of a new terrorist attack hanging over their head's they'd be more malleable. Then they could use it for all sorts of purposes like tax evasion - as Obama clearly stated he wanted to do.
Turns out they were wrong, and the public and the industry didn't go along as easily as they'd hoped. Rather than suffer a judicial defeat which may be counterproductive to their aims, they just "find" an alternative at the 11th hour and move on.
You are exactly correct.
My feeling is that the FBI saw that their chances in court were not looking great, so decided to accept the outside offers (NSA?) for cracking the phone that had in fact been available to them all this time. The excuse that they no longer need to crack the phone also allows them to back down without losing face.
You are exactly right. Nothing else makes sense. And, the Gummint is notorious for last-second things like this.
Yeah, we know. There were third party mice by the time the Mac Plus become popular.
I am talking about the priesthood at Apple accepting a second mouse button.
I bet there are still a some of them holding out.
You might be interested to know that there were some on the original Macintosh team (notably, the late, great Jef Raskin) that were lobbying (hard!) for an up to FIVE button-mouse.
However, in usability studies conducted (I think by Apple, but maybe others. Can't remember), they ALL concluded that a single-button mouse was universally easier for users to understand, even though they had to learn things like the double-click gesture. Here's a little of that history.
And think about it: How many times have you had a non-technical (or sometimes even technically-savvy) User ask you "Do you mean 'Left-Click' or 'Right-Click'?" A single-button mouse neatly removes that "mental speed-bump".
You also have to keep in mind that in 1981, when the Mac was first being developed (and these usability tests conducted), virtually NO ONE outside of Xerox PARC or SRI (I think it was) had ever seen Doug Englebert's crazy "mouse" thing. So it was a different time. Now, we think it's just silly that people couldn't deal with a two (or more) button mouse; but not then.
But the "Single-Button Mouse" meme is just like the "Apple Stole the GUI from PARC" lore; it just won't ever die.
Personally, this seems like a configuration problem by the Vendor (McDonald's, etc), not an ApplePay issue. The fact that it works flawlessly at one POS terminal and not at another screams "setup issue".
And WTF, Over, does Siri have to do with this???
FFS, Slashdot Editors have GOT to be the bottom-of-the-barrel...
I'm thinking the quickest way might to be punished. They do send people there as punishment, right? I guess you could sit in Oklahoma and wait for a tornado.
Or wait until they invent matter/energy transporters.
;-)
Afterall, you didn't say the "fastest" way...
And yet there are all sorts of things that simply don't communicate with anything other than Windows. Point being, it's not universally so. I'm not sure why you'd argue against that. Well, except you didn't.
I didn't skip it at all. I just pointed out that it was a non-issue; because it was easy to virtualize (or dual-boot) Windows when need be, and still retain the advantages of using a Mac.
Strawmen are easy to beat but they don't impress me. Come back when you can program my sister's insulin pump and her TPN equipment or her morphine pump.Come back when you can program many of the hand-held devices with crazy ports.
You can not. Why you'd pretend otherwise is beyond me.
Oh, I see what your problem is: You are confusing "programming" (i.e., using a computer to set some parameters in the software running on a device with an embedded microcontroller), vs. "Programming", meaning "Software Development", which was the theme of TFA. My Post was regarding the latter. So, I am not "pretending" anything. What you are describing is as far from "Embedded Development" as creating a Playlist on your iPod is from writing the OS for that same iPod.
And, before you pat yourself on the back with a response of "No other OS can do it either!" I'd like to point out that that's exactly my point.
Actually, I am not going to say "No other OS can do it, either!"; because that simply doesn't apply. If I want to "program" the SETTINGS on your sister's TPN infusion pump, these days, that would likely be done one of three ways: 1) Web Interface; 2) Terminal App; 3) Proprietary Software.
In the first instance, that would likely be platform-agnostic, unless the infusion pump uses some crazy DirectX plugin crap (for no earthly reason). In the second instance, a Terminal App is a Terminal App. Available on every platform. And in the third instance, that MAY be platform-specific; but, on a Mac, more than likely would be available through virtualization or dual-booting. If the infusion pump was REALLY old, it MIGHT only have a serial port (not a show-stopper; and if you are talking about a Windows laptop built in this century, it probably doesn't have an RS-232 port or Parallel port any more than a Mac laptop); but, more than likely, the infusion pump has either an Ethernet port and/or an USB port; so again, "ports" are beginning to matter less and less as time goes on; and as computer equipment of all platforms and manufacturers coalesces into only offering USB Thunderbolt/USB-C, Ethernet and, and, NOTHING.
By the way, a friend of mine was doing some consulting that involved working with (I believe) a Gas Chromatograph. They needed to replace the broken Windows machine that ran this mega-dollar piece of equipment, who's software ran ONLY on XP.
Do you know what they HAD to do? Use a Mac mini, running XP under Bootcamp (yes, I know that isn't possible now). Why? Because EVERY SINGLE WINDOWS MACHINE THEY COULD PURCHASE (new) had NO DRIVERS that would work with XP, because they had all moved on to (at that time, Windows 7).
So, there's at least one anecdote where a Mac actually had BETTER Windows Compatibility than a "real" Windows machine.
But as I said, it is YOU that trotted out a Strawman; in that you (conveniently or ignorantly) confused "Programming" (as in "Programming your VCR) with "Programming" meaning "Embedded DEVELOPMENT".
In which case, I'd disagree. OS X is no better than any other modern OS. It is different but it's certainly not better. It might be better for your needs but it is not better for everyone's needs. So, if robust is some subjective word meant to inflate ego by affirmation it has no value here.
However, you'll note that they did answer what it meant to them. And that was not what they said. I'm not sure why you'd suggest they meant different than they said they meant.
Actually, I wrote my reply before reading their response; so kindly disregard my uniformed drivel... ;-)
Hmm... Okay... Define for me, if you don't mind, "robust." How is OS X more robust than, well... Any OS? 'Cause I'm not seeing that. I'm not seeing how it's more robust than any other modern operating system. I wouldn't say it is better - nor would I say it is worse. I'd say it does some things differently. There is nothing that I've ever found that I can't do on any operating system - where end results are the goal. Some just make it a easier or harder but the end is the same.
Note: I'm not an operating system zealot or anything - I've never met an OS I didn't like. I've met some I didn't prefer and some interfaces I didn't like. I really am curious as to what you mean by robust.
Define the term "robust" in this context. "Robust" is a term that people simply take as a synonym for "better" most of the time.
I'm thinking things that need to be programmed like embedded stuff. Some of those ports aren't going to be working all that well via a Mac, they may not have the communications stack already done for them, they may have to do it over the odd ports that Apple includes, so it might be problematic.
It really does matter, I should think. More so in a VM where you're dealing with virtualized ports. It's very much an edge case area but it does negate the premise that it's always the case. I don't think any other OS is going to be easy (or even doable) with any other OS entirely either. There's stuff out there that simply isn't going to work on a Mac. It's not important - it just negates that the rule is always true. (Though I suppose one could almost always start wiring and patching new hardware in - but I think it's no longer a Mac at that point.)
Except, as an embedded developer with nearly 4 decades of paid experience, I used Macs for embedded development for years and years, for both my hardware and software Dev. Platform.
Sometimes it was a bit of a challenge back n the PowerPC days; but the benefits were worth it. Fortunately, back then I as doing mostly Assembly Language development, and so the Toolchain was pretty simple. And now, it is actually much, much, easier. And in the occasional case where you have some tool that only wants to work with a particular environment, it will ALWAYS be Windows, and modern Macs make that a no-brainer. As for hardware and ports, almost everything needed is USB, so lack of ports is generally the most "non" of the non-issues. And if you have to use a Windows VM to talk to your scope or FPGA programmer, then it's just a click away; and with things like VMWare's Unity mode, you hardly even notice that you are running Windows apps, anyway.
So, as Developer after Developer has noted in this most atypically "civil" Slashdot tread, using Macs means you have freedom to use whatever OS works best, plus you still have access to best-in-class documentation tools, and with a system that is stable, doesn't bug you and call for attention and fiddling the vast majority of the time, and on hardware that even most of the detractors admit is second-to-none.
So, in response to your statement, it is actually MORE THAN EVER a Mac for Embedded Development at this point.
Some people are helpless regardless of what OS they're using. They require constant care and feeding even if they are using an Apple tablet. Even Apple products won't "save" those kinds of people. They are entirely hopeless.
Oh, you are SOOOO right!
And they're the first ones to whine "I thought Macs were supposed to be EEEE-ZEEE..."
And the goal is to get to Kansas the quickest and most efficient way.
Then they ALL lose; because the most efficient way to get to KC is walking.
Wasn't MacOS supposed to have been "the desktop Unix" 10 or 15 years ago. Wasn't this supposed to have happened already rather than it just happening now?
OS X (not MacOS) IS "The Destop Unix", and has been so since 2000. That's SIXTEEN YEARS.
Welcome to the party; sorry your invitation got lost in the mail...
Give them time. You remember how long it took to accept a second button on the mouse, don't you?
Do you? Bet it's long before you think it was.
i said, Windows is equivalent to the incandescent light bulb. Linux approximates the CFL, and OS X could be the LED.
Or people using Apple products are just full of themselves and think they can program.
I have nearly 4 decades of embedded developer experience, and the vast majority of that has been using Apple products.
And why? Because with one computer, I could have my Dev. Tools, plus an entire Desktop Publishing chain for Documentation, and real MS Office for participating in the rest of the "business" stuff.
And that was even back in the early 90s. Now the Mac is a even a more obvious choice for most Development work.
President Obama is being improperly advised and/or technically ignorant at best, and being an enabler to the power-hungry and/or a power-grabber himself. Note that I voted for this man, twice! Wishing I'd not have done so now.
I voted for him twice, too. And I, too was extremely disheartened to hear that he weighed-in on the side of the FBI.
However, as far as Encryption goes, I would be very surprised if the President is any more informed than my dog, and is simply parroting the bullshit that is being fed him by the real criminals here: The "experts" in the FBI (you know, the same organization that didn't know not to reset the AppleID password) that are lying through their teeth, just to get an extremely dangerous precedent set.
With that in mind, I don't believe that any President would be savvy enough to go against the advice of his/her Gummint "Experts".
Then again, if it were my domain, you wouldn't have the option to begin with. That's a default policy right there.
I work for a small Mom and Pop (literally) Software Consultancy. Nearly half of the employees are Developers, and know better than to do stupid stuff. So, we are given pretty much carte-blanche to tromp around in our Domain, because we are all careful, and don't shit where we eat.
I understand that turning off Windows Updates is a pretty risky thing to do; but so is having your OS ripped out from under you by those-that-think-that-THEY-own-your-computer.
I didn't say I turned of my (two) AV apps, or my Firewall. I simply turned-off Windows Updates. Now if MS could be TRUSTED to actually categorize their Updates CORRECTLY (instead of lying about the Windows 10 "forced update" ones), I would be more-than-happy to let them continue to push me SECURITY Updates.
But that simply isn't the case.
FairPlay is still used on movies, TV shows and music videos, is it not?
In all honesty, I wondered that too, but didn't have the time to research whether that was actually FairPlay, or something else.
Because Apple is bitching about software that isn't even theirs.
So, you're of the opinion that iOS is NOTHING BUT F/OSS packages?
Riiiiiight.
Of course, that's the ONLY reason why they'd serve over https, right?
"...the iOS malware exploits a flaw in Apple's DRM software"
O The Irony.
Trying to protect their profits creates a situation that will almost certainly cost them money.
Perhaps you have forgotten this, which clearly explains Apple's actual stance on DRM.
There wouldn't have BEEN a digital music market if Apple hadn't figured out a reasonable compromise on DRM.
And, if you recall, Apple DROPPED DRM from their Music files YEARS ago. FairPlay is just hanging around for the people who never updated their old DRM-ed music files.
Well you at least trust Windows 7 more than Windows 10, right?
Yes, in the same way that I trust a feral cat more than a wild cougar.
However *** IF *** the court forces Apple to comply then Apple should make the modified iOS. This way they can lock this modified iOS to the one device in question. [emphasis added]
I must have missed the Press Release where Apple stated that that was even possible. I really wish people would stop parroting and perpetuating that canard.
Of course Apple is not going to state this, they are in PR/legal mode, trying to position and frame the debate. Saying that when they are altering the source code to avoid passcode entry delays and such that they could also add code that checks the device's UDID and refuses to run if it is not the device in question, well that's counterproductive to the narrative they are trying to create. The narrative of "global havoc".
So, IOW, you're just guessing.
And, so, what about all the industry-leaders and even government intelligence experts that are lining up in public support of Apple like planes at an airport. What exactly do they (esp. the intelligence experts) have to gain supporting a position that is contrary to the DOJ?
No problem. I was really tired when I typed and I was completely open to the idea that I left out a word or mangled an edit to screw up what I was trying to say. :-)
And I think I was getting up to pee in the middle of the night when I replied; so I was similarly-mentally-challenged, LOL!