Because it's spatial, things stick where I put them. If I put an icon in the lower right, next time I open that folder it'll be in the lower right. If I view the folder by list, it'll always be viewed by list until *I* tell the computer to view it differently.
OS X is constantly undoing my changes. OS X allows you to open the same folder in different windows at the same time... all kinds of nasty stuff like that that drives me mad.
That just shows you didn't use tabbed folders much. I mean, I can sit here and talk about the dozens of things you can do with them if you take the time to set them up, but it basically sums to "you don't know what they're for."
The OS X Finder is still (marginally) better than Windows Explorer, but it's nowhere even CLOSE to where it was in MacOS 8.5-9.2.2... you have to remember that Mac users compare the OS X Finder to the older versions of the Finder, not to KDE or Gnome or Windows.
My major gripe is that the OS X Finder doesn't implement the "tabbed folders" feature that the MacOS 8.5 Finder had... that feature saved me probably 10-15 minutes a day of digging through folders to find things, and it's plain gone with nothing to replace it. You also can't put shortcuts in the Apple menu anymore. (Apple says the Dock replaces this feature, but the Dock is so slow and awkward that it really doesn't.) You also can't have OS X automatically connect to network shares at login like OS 8.5-9.2.2 did. It also stalls while trying to talk to network shares frequently. It's non-spatial.
What's better than the OS X Finder? The Finder in MacOS 8.5-9.2.2, to answer your specific question.
Constructing a post here is an editing process. Originally I had two points I was going to use, then I thought of a third one... yes, it was a glaring error in the product you saw, but you also must understand that I can't type a perfect document on the first try and Slashdot doesn't allow me to go back and fix errors like that.
"corporate-sycophant-ish?" I see you have no intention to debate in a mature fashion, so I won't bother to reply to your other points.
Maybe because there's no feasible alternative at the moment? Maybe because he likes some artists who only distribute on iTMS? Maybe because he wants to play the AAC files he legally obtained on his Linux workstation?
No feasible alternative? I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:
1) Don't listen to the music if you don't like how it's distributed. 2) Listen to the music on the radio, but don't buy a copy of it. 3) Buy a copy of the music on CD, assuming there's a CD out with no DRM.
No feasible alternative, my ass. Only if you're a spoiled brat with "I want it now now now CDs take too long give it to me now I have to own it now" attitude.
Who owns your computer?... I'm talking about what you do with your personal physical property in the privacy of your home.
Irrelevant. The fact is that I accepted terms of service for iTunes which would be morally wrong for me to break. If I didn't agree with those terms of service, I had ample chance to simply not create an iTunes account. Or I can cancel my iTunes account at any time if the terms change so that I no longer agree with them. But both using iTunes and breaking their terms of service is morally wrong.
DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work.... But IANAL so don't base anything upon that speculation.
Again, irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that DRM is or is not "right" and I don't much care. I'm saying that agreeing to do something, and then not doing it is morally wrong.
And it is not a fantasy that abusive corporate control of the music industry has been detrimental to everyone minus the big-wig execs and a handful of top artists who managed to wrangle the system.
If the artists (you know, the copyright holders of the music) don't want to deal with the RIAA, they don't have to. Nobody is holding a gun to your favorite artist's head forcing them to sign with an RIAA label.
So why did you purchase DRM music in the first place if your rights are so eroded? That's the hypocrisy I'm pointing out. If you hate DRM, then why do you support it by giving companies that use it your money?
So you're unhappy with the way iTunes works. Fine! Don't use it!
The poster I was replying to had your opinion of DRM, but was also using iTunes-- a product that relies on DRM technology. In short, he was a hypocrite.
Look, you had the choice to agree, or disagree, with Apple's terms of service before you created an account with them. It's immoral to agree with their terms of service and then in the next moment break them. That's immoral regardless of how moral DRM is, or how evil the RIAA is, or how big a corporation Apple is, etc.
And then you turn around again and post on Slashdot saying you have a moral right to break Apple's terms of service.
Have all Slashdotters completely lost the ability to identify hypocrisy? I think that's what the problem is.
You miss the point. If you don't like Apple's terms of service (and yes, the DRM is in there, and yes using iTunes on a supported OS is in there), then don't buy from the Apple iTunes store!
Let's say for a moment that you're against putting DRM on music, which seems to be the case. Why are you supporting a music store (iTunes) which that puts DRM on every song they sell? I would imagine that, if you really did not like DRM, you would do everything in your power to discourage its use. But instead, you're giving money to a company that sells DRM with every product.
Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous? They are, basically: 1) before you can play the music file on another computer, you must enter your iTunes username and password and 2) you can't burn more than 7 copies of the same playlist. (You can delete and re-create an identical playlist and burn another 7 copies.) Do you consider that ridiculous? I think they're very reasonable... in fact, even if you want to do illegal activities with the music, they don't restrict you once. (If you want to illegally sell CDs, you can just burn one and then use iTunes to duplicate that CD as many times as you want.)
Look, the fact is:
1) If you don't like DRM, you're being a goddamned hypocrite by supporting a music store that uses it.
2) In addition, you're liable to hurt us people who don't mind the DRM, and in fact appreciate Apple's service, because cracking the encryption will more likely than not cause the RIAA to demand greater restrictions in the future.
You play it off as if fighting DRM is some great act of civil disobiedence which will liberate us all from some fantasy corporate-controlled nightmare world. You have to realize that you're in a small minority, and you have to respect the rights of others who don't hold the same views.
So, uh, there are like over a hundred posts here, and since nobody has said so yet... what the hell IS BitKeeper? I get the impression it's something used for the Linux kernel? What does it do? Why is this news newsworthy?
Would be nice if the article submissions actually contained some of this information...
Well, it's not from Microsoft Press, but the Official Xbox Magazine is, uh, *official* you know. Chances are that they know more than anybody else about the Xbox 2. (Although from reading the same article this appeared in, I doubt it. About the only fact that could even somewhat confirm is that those leaked Xbox 2 controller photos are kind of close to what the final controller will look like maybe.)
And you could video tape like two katanas and then using the artificial intelligence put rockets in the hilt and you could fly all over the place by holding the katanas and turning on the rockets!
Risk-takers? By using an OS that has roots at least 35 years behind the cutting edge, with software that's 20 years old, and a GUI concept that's about equilivant to Apple's or Microsoft's was 10 years ago? That concentrates on stability and security more than new features?
What the hell are you talking about?
BeOS, now THAT software was made by risk takers. Linux/Unix users are the most risk-adverse people there are.
I almost get the impression that you don't even know what the word "risk" means exactly...
Now try pasting an image, bitmapped. Now try pasting an image, vector. Now try pasting 3-4 selected non-contiguous spreadsheet cells.
I think everyone agrees that copying and pasting text works in Linux (in everything except x-emacs, at least), but that's only a small piece of the pie. MacOS could handle copying *any* type of data into *any* application in 1984. Windows could handle this by 1993 or so. Linux still can't.
You think that's bad, think of how Apple Macintosh uses feel when they try to use Windows *or* Linux. The difference is an order of magnitude greater. (Less-so now that Apple's decided to stop following their own GUI recommendations also, though.)
The MUD community, using simple Telnet protocol, uses *bold* and/italics/ all the time. (Try it in MS Word-- somebody at Microsoft was aware of this convention also, because Word automatically bolds and italiced words typed that way. Quicker than using control-b or control-i usually.)
Ok, here's some more history. MacOS used to have a menu item labelled "Put Away." The idea is that you put a file on the desktop to work with it, then you "Put [it] Away" when done. The file would return to where it was before you moved it to the desktop. For disks, the idea is that you would insert the disk and then "Put [it] Away" when done with the disk. This would spit the disk out of the drive so you could put it back in the disk carrier (or whatever "away" is.) The shortcut for "Put Away" was Command-Y.
"Put Away" is distinct from "Eject." When you "Eject" a disk, the OS retains a 'ghost' image of it so you can still copy files to it. (Remember, that the original Macs had only one floppy drive... this was the only way for users to copy content from one disk to another.)
For some reason, some moron at Apple decided that "Put Away" or Command-Y was too hard to hit and so made it so that floppy icons dragged to the trash would put themselves away. This is a bad idea because: 1) There was already a way of putting a disk away that made a heck of a lot more sense. 2) Floppy disks are the *only* things that behave weird when you drag them to the trash icon-- everything other icon will move itself into the trashcan.
Then again, another part of the problem is educational. When I show people the *original* intent of the "Put Away" menu item, they at least understand why Apple designed the system that way. (And why the "Eject" command leaves a ghost image behind.)
For some reason, most people learned "drag to trash to 'Put Away' disks" without learning the other functions of the "Put Away" menu item, or the difference between "Put Away" and "Eject." Oh well.
Because it's not required. In Windows/Linux, there are several applications that *require* the use of contextual menus to do certain things. For instance, open up the Disk Management applet in Computer Management in Windows control panel and try to change a drive's letter without using a contextual menu-- you can't do it! You'll never come across a situation like that in MacOS.
Apple believes that contextual menus should *only* be used as a time-saver, not as the only way of doing something.
You mean a migration path like RealBasic provides?
Seriously, that solution is already out there, and it does MacOS X as well as Windows and Linux. RealBasic just has a really crappy marketting effort behind it so nobody knows about it...
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's spatial, things stick where I put them. If I put an icon in the lower right, next time I open that folder it'll be in the lower right. If I view the folder by list, it'll always be viewed by list until *I* tell the computer to view it differently.
OS X is constantly undoing my changes. OS X allows you to open the same folder in different windows at the same time... all kinds of nasty stuff like that that drives me mad.
That just shows you didn't use tabbed folders much. I mean, I can sit here and talk about the dozens of things you can do with them if you take the time to set them up, but it basically sums to "you don't know what they're for."
The OS X Finder is still (marginally) better than Windows Explorer, but it's nowhere even CLOSE to where it was in MacOS 8.5-9.2.2... you have to remember that Mac users compare the OS X Finder to the older versions of the Finder, not to KDE or Gnome or Windows.
My major gripe is that the OS X Finder doesn't implement the "tabbed folders" feature that the MacOS 8.5 Finder had... that feature saved me probably 10-15 minutes a day of digging through folders to find things, and it's plain gone with nothing to replace it. You also can't put shortcuts in the Apple menu anymore. (Apple says the Dock replaces this feature, but the Dock is so slow and awkward that it really doesn't.) You also can't have OS X automatically connect to network shares at login like OS 8.5-9.2.2 did. It also stalls while trying to talk to network shares frequently. It's non-spatial.
What's better than the OS X Finder? The Finder in MacOS 8.5-9.2.2, to answer your specific question.
Constructing a post here is an editing process. Originally I had two points I was going to use, then I thought of a third one... yes, it was a glaring error in the product you saw, but you also must understand that I can't type a perfect document on the first try and Slashdot doesn't allow me to go back and fix errors like that.
"corporate-sycophant-ish?" I see you have no intention to debate in a mature fashion, so I won't bother to reply to your other points.
Maybe because there's no feasible alternative at the moment? Maybe because he likes some artists who only distribute on iTMS? Maybe because he wants to play the AAC files he legally obtained on his Linux workstation?
... I'm talking about what you do with your personal physical property in the privacy of your home.
... But IANAL so don't base anything upon that speculation.
No feasible alternative? I would counter that the following two alternatives are feasible:
1) Don't listen to the music if you don't like how it's distributed.
2) Listen to the music on the radio, but don't buy a copy of it.
3) Buy a copy of the music on CD, assuming there's a CD out with no DRM.
No feasible alternative, my ass. Only if you're a spoiled brat with "I want it now now now CDs take too long give it to me now I have to own it now" attitude.
Who owns your computer?
Irrelevant. The fact is that I accepted terms of service for iTunes which would be morally wrong for me to break. If I didn't agree with those terms of service, I had ample chance to simply not create an iTunes account. Or I can cancel my iTunes account at any time if the terms change so that I no longer agree with them. But both using iTunes and breaking their terms of service is morally wrong.
DRM doesn't work and there is no way that it even theoretically can work.
Again, irrelevant to my argument. I'm not arguing that DRM is or is not "right" and I don't much care. I'm saying that agreeing to do something, and then not doing it is morally wrong.
And it is not a fantasy that abusive corporate control of the music industry has been detrimental to everyone minus the big-wig execs and a handful of top artists who managed to wrangle the system.
If the artists (you know, the copyright holders of the music) don't want to deal with the RIAA, they don't have to. Nobody is holding a gun to your favorite artist's head forcing them to sign with an RIAA label.
So why did you purchase DRM music in the first place if your rights are so eroded? That's the hypocrisy I'm pointing out. If you hate DRM, then why do you support it by giving companies that use it your money?
So you're unhappy with the way iTunes works. Fine! Don't use it!
The poster I was replying to had your opinion of DRM, but was also using iTunes-- a product that relies on DRM technology. In short, he was a hypocrite.
Waaa waaa waaa
Look, you had the choice to agree, or disagree, with Apple's terms of service before you created an account with them. It's immoral to agree with their terms of service and then in the next moment break them. That's immoral regardless of how moral DRM is, or how evil the RIAA is, or how big a corporation Apple is, etc.
And then you turn around again and post on Slashdot saying you have a moral right to break Apple's terms of service.
Have all Slashdotters completely lost the ability to identify hypocrisy? I think that's what the problem is.
You miss the point. If you don't like Apple's terms of service (and yes, the DRM is in there, and yes using iTunes on a supported OS is in there), then don't buy from the Apple iTunes store!
Let's say for a moment that you're against putting DRM on music, which seems to be the case. Why are you supporting a music store (iTunes) which that puts DRM on every song they sell? I would imagine that, if you really did not like DRM, you would do everything in your power to discourage its use. But instead, you're giving money to a company that sells DRM with every product.
Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous? They are, basically: 1) before you can play the music file on another computer, you must enter your iTunes username and password and 2) you can't burn more than 7 copies of the same playlist. (You can delete and re-create an identical playlist and burn another 7 copies.) Do you consider that ridiculous? I think they're very reasonable... in fact, even if you want to do illegal activities with the music, they don't restrict you once. (If you want to illegally sell CDs, you can just burn one and then use iTunes to duplicate that CD as many times as you want.)
Look, the fact is:
1) If you don't like DRM, you're being a goddamned hypocrite by supporting a music store that uses it.
2) In addition, you're liable to hurt us people who don't mind the DRM, and in fact appreciate Apple's service, because cracking the encryption will more likely than not cause the RIAA to demand greater restrictions in the future.
You play it off as if fighting DRM is some great act of civil disobiedence which will liberate us all from some fantasy corporate-controlled nightmare world. You have to realize that you're in a small minority, and you have to respect the rights of others who don't hold the same views.
So, uh, there are like over a hundred posts here, and since nobody has said so yet... what the hell IS BitKeeper? I get the impression it's something used for the Linux kernel? What does it do? Why is this news newsworthy?
Would be nice if the article submissions actually contained some of this information...
Well, it's not from Microsoft Press, but the Official Xbox Magazine is, uh, *official* you know. Chances are that they know more than anybody else about the Xbox 2. (Although from reading the same article this appeared in, I doubt it. About the only fact that could even somewhat confirm is that those leaked Xbox 2 controller photos are kind of close to what the final controller will look like maybe.)
RealBasic can interface with OCXs, I believe. Extreme Basic is VERY alpha right now; I don't know why the original poster even mentioned it.
And you could video tape like two katanas and then using the artificial intelligence put rockets in the hilt and you could fly all over the place by holding the katanas and turning on the rockets!
Hm. You're right. I swear Office 97 and Office 98 (Macintosh) both do it... I swear I'm not insane. ;)
Risk-takers? By using an OS that has roots at least 35 years behind the cutting edge, with software that's 20 years old, and a GUI concept that's about equilivant to Apple's or Microsoft's was 10 years ago? That concentrates on stability and security more than new features?
What the hell are you talking about?
BeOS, now THAT software was made by risk takers. Linux/Unix users are the most risk-adverse people there are.
I almost get the impression that you don't even know what the word "risk" means exactly...
Great.
Now try pasting an image, bitmapped. Now try pasting an image, vector. Now try pasting 3-4 selected non-contiguous spreadsheet cells.
I think everyone agrees that copying and pasting text works in Linux (in everything except x-emacs, at least), but that's only a small piece of the pie. MacOS could handle copying *any* type of data into *any* application in 1984. Windows could handle this by 1993 or so. Linux still can't.
You think that's bad, think of how Apple Macintosh uses feel when they try to use Windows *or* Linux. The difference is an order of magnitude greater. (Less-so now that Apple's decided to stop following their own GUI recommendations also, though.)
It's been in pretty steady use.
/italics/ all the time. (Try it in MS Word-- somebody at Microsoft was aware of this convention also, because Word automatically bolds and italiced words typed that way. Quicker than using control-b or control-i usually.)
The MUD community, using simple Telnet protocol, uses *bold* and
Ok, here's some more history. MacOS used to have a menu item labelled "Put Away." The idea is that you put a file on the desktop to work with it, then you "Put [it] Away" when done. The file would return to where it was before you moved it to the desktop. For disks, the idea is that you would insert the disk and then "Put [it] Away" when done with the disk. This would spit the disk out of the drive so you could put it back in the disk carrier (or whatever "away" is.) The shortcut for "Put Away" was Command-Y.
"Put Away" is distinct from "Eject." When you "Eject" a disk, the OS retains a 'ghost' image of it so you can still copy files to it. (Remember, that the original Macs had only one floppy drive... this was the only way for users to copy content from one disk to another.)
For some reason, some moron at Apple decided that "Put Away" or Command-Y was too hard to hit and so made it so that floppy icons dragged to the trash would put themselves away. This is a bad idea because:
1) There was already a way of putting a disk away that made a heck of a lot more sense.
2) Floppy disks are the *only* things that behave weird when you drag them to the trash icon-- everything other icon will move itself into the trashcan.
Then again, another part of the problem is educational. When I show people the *original* intent of the "Put Away" menu item, they at least understand why Apple designed the system that way. (And why the "Eject" command leaves a ghost image behind.)
For some reason, most people learned "drag to trash to 'Put Away' disks" without learning the other functions of the "Put Away" menu item, or the difference between "Put Away" and "Eject." Oh well.
Because it's not required. In Windows/Linux, there are several applications that *require* the use of contextual menus to do certain things. For instance, open up the Disk Management applet in Computer Management in Windows control panel and try to change a drive's letter without using a contextual menu-- you can't do it! You'll never come across a situation like that in MacOS.
Apple believes that contextual menus should *only* be used as a time-saver, not as the only way of doing something.
Why such flaming? Linux users should be happy that proprietary software developers are porting their products to Linux. Moreso than before.
You said "migration path to Linux" not "migration path to open source." Nor did you say "open source migration path to Linux."
So, yeah, I replied to what you *typed*, but you have to consider that I can't actually read your mind.
Yeah, well, it WOULD help the original poster if he had some kind of authoritative source on that claim as opposed to his word-of-mouth.
After all, the Department of Justice covered up their drowning of puppies in the river I live next to! HOW SAD!
Anybody can make any claim, but I don't buy it without at least a little bit of evidence.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that American phone infrastructure uses 8kHz of bandwidth... of course I have no factual data whatsoever.
You mean a migration path like RealBasic provides?
Seriously, that solution is already out there, and it does MacOS X as well as Windows and Linux. RealBasic just has a really crappy marketting effort behind it so nobody knows about it...