> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> You don't get to spend half your life making it work on whatever flaky >> random crapness using an x86 system involves this week. Strangely, I >> don't miss that.
> That's interesting to hear. I got a new Dell laptop in September. > Put the latest Ubuntu on a USB stick, and installed it in less than 30 > minutes. Everything was working fine for the first time (and I had to > admit, this surprised me quite a bit, I have been using Linux for a > long time and it wasn't always this nice).
>> Because it is a commercial system there is a refreshing absence of >> whining ideologues[1], though you tend to get a different sort of >> annoying people[2] to make up for it.
>> Apple seem no more and no less unpleasant than other companies that size >> (though the recent flash thing gives me pause there).
> I had an Apple laptop around 2004-2005. It was still the Power CPU > series. I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 > months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 > tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either > quirky X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc). Then I went to Europe for a few > weeks, and tried to watch a DVD I rented there. I was told that I can > change the region setting - but only a total of 5 times. I got very > angry with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are > telling me what I can do with it? Next day, I started running good > old Debian on it. But then it was just an overpriced PC with a > different CPU architecture :-) I got rid of it in a year or so.
The restriction with regard to changing region codes is forced by the movie industry, Apple has very little choice in that area. For some machines, there exists open source solutions to circumvent this.
But usually, all DVD players are required to have this restriction...
Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> writes: > On 31/05/2010 14:48, Tamas K Papp wrote: >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>>> You don't get to spend half your life making it work on whatever flaky >>> random crapness using an x86 system involves this week. Strangely, I >>> don't miss that.
>> That's interesting to hear. I got a new Dell laptop in September. >> Put the latest Ubuntu on a USB stick, and installed it in less than 30 >> minutes. Everything was working fine for the first time (and I had to >> admit, this surprised me quite a bit, I have been using Linux for a >> long time and it wasn't always this nice).
>>> Because it is a commercial system there is a refreshing absence of >>> whining ideologues[1], though you tend to get a different sort of >>> annoying people[2] to make up for it.
>>> Apple seem no more and no less unpleasant than other companies that size >>> (though the recent flash thing gives me pause there).
>> I had an Apple laptop around 2004-2005. It was still the Power CPU >> series. I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 >> months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 >> tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either >> quirky X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc). Then I went to Europe for a few >> weeks, and tried to watch a DVD I rented there. I was told that I can >> change the region setting - but only a total of 5 times. I got very >> angry with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are >> telling me what I can do with it? Next day, I started running good >> old Debian on it. But then it was just an overpriced PC with a >> different CPU architecture :-) I got rid of it in a year or so.
> The restriction with regard to changing region codes is forced by the > movie industry, Apple has very little choice in that area. For some > machines, there exists open source solutions to circumvent this.
> But usually, all DVD players are required to have this restriction...
Hence my boycot of DVD (and following support standards, assuming they do the same, if they don't I don't care, they lose, since), now I just buy more hard disks to do my backups and archives.
Now, perhaps I'm the only one vs. 5999999999 others, boycotting DVD, etc, but it's a question of principle.
On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:19:17 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-05-31 13:48:42 +0100, Tamas K Papp said:
>> I got very >> angry with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are >> telling me what I can do with it?
> Actually, I think the DVD region people are saying what you can do with > it.
My impression is that Apple is chums with these people, so even if they were asked to do it, I doubt that they protested too loudly. But my Apple had a lot of silly DRM stuff going on anyway. We can of course try to blame that on the companies which provided the content, but I still think that Apple just loves lock-in and complete control.
Anyhow, I am not claiming that Apple is more evil than the average software company of a similar size/market power. I think that above a certain size, the lure of this kind of control becomes irresistible. Consequently, for anything more complicated than a microwave oven, I prefer companies that sell hardware, and let me deal with the software part.
Actually, I should thank Apple for the lesson this episode gave me. I have a relative who is a pro photographer and consequently a hardcore Mac fan, so I have always heard high praise about Macs. In 2004, I was dazzled by the shiny design, and reading Paul Grahams essay [1] finally made me drink the Kool-Aid. Now I consider myself immunized.
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > You don't get to spend half your life making it work on whatever flaky > > random crapness using an x86 system involves this week. Strangely, I > > don't miss that.
> That's interesting to hear. I got a new Dell laptop in September. > Put the latest Ubuntu on a USB stick, and installed it in less than 30 > minutes. Everything was working fine for the first time (and I had to > admit, this surprised me quite a bit, I have been using Linux for a > long time and it wasn't always this nice).
> > Because it is a commercial system there is a refreshing absence of > > whining ideologues[1], though you tend to get a different sort of > > annoying people[2] to make up for it.
> > Apple seem no more and no less unpleasant than other companies that size > > (though the recent flash thing gives me pause there).
> I had an Apple laptop around 2004-2005. It was still the Power CPU > series. I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 > months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 > tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either > quirky X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc). Then I went to Europe for a few > weeks, and tried to watch a DVD I rented there. I was told that I can > change the region setting - but only a total of 5 times. I got very > angry with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are > telling me what I can do with it? Next day, I started running good > old Debian on it.
On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:40:54 -0700, RG wrote: > In article <86hphaFol...@mid.individual.net>, > Tamas K Papp <tkp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> > You don't get to spend half your life making it work on whatever >> > flaky random crapness using an x86 system involves this week. >> > Strangely, I don't miss that.
>> That's interesting to hear. I got a new Dell laptop in September. Put >> the latest Ubuntu on a USB stick, and installed it in less than 30 >> minutes. Everything was working fine for the first time (and I had to >> admit, this surprised me quite a bit, I have been using Linux for a >> long time and it wasn't always this nice).
>> > Because it is a commercial system there is a refreshing absence of >> > whining ideologues[1], though you tend to get a different sort of >> > annoying people[2] to make up for it.
>> > Apple seem no more and no less unpleasant than other companies that >> > size (though the recent flash thing gives me pause there).
>> I had an Apple laptop around 2004-2005. It was still the Power CPU >> series. I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 >> months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 >> tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either quirky >> X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc). Then I went to Europe for a few weeks, >> and tried to watch a DVD I rented there. I was told that I can change >> the region setting - but only a total of 5 times. I got very angry >> with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are telling >> me what I can do with it? Next day, I started running good old Debian >> on it.
If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the restriction, but could not get them working either (I think that I had a revised firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game at that point). And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point for various other reasons.
But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, I knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any more, everything was just an apt-get away.
> I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 > months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 > tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either > quirky X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc).
I think this mostly explains the differing opinions. Realising I wouldn't have to deal with X any more was (along with mot needing to put up with ugly-as-shit, broken, x86 HW) was, for me, some kind of experience that psychiatrists probably have a name for: I felt happy for days. It took me significantly longer that the same might be true for Emacs: I could just stop dealing with thousands of lines of Emacs customisation code which broke every time I installed a new release (I still do have an Emacs on the system, but I basically never use it, and I use XEmacs intentionally because it seems to be essentially dead so never changes).
I just want tools that do what I want and which work without spending the rest of my life fiddling with them.
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:19:17 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> On 2010-05-31 13:48:42 +0100, Tamas K Papp said:
>>> I got very >>> angry with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are >>> telling me what I can do with it?
>> Actually, I think the DVD region people are saying what you can do with >> it.
> My impression is that Apple is chums with these people, so even if > they were asked to do it, I doubt that they protested too loudly. But > my Apple had a lot of silly DRM stuff going on anyway. We can of > course try to blame that on the companies which provided the content, > but I still think that Apple just loves lock-in and complete control.
Apple used a DRM method for iTunes in the beginning because that was the only way to get the music industry on board. Later, it was Apple that successfully pushed the music industry to get rid of DRM.
Apple makes mistakes, for sure, but the issues with regard to DVD region codes and DRM are not Apple's fault.
>> In article<86hphaFol...@mid.individual.net>, >> Tamas K Papp<tkp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:55:54 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>>>> You don't get to spend half your life making it work on whatever >>>> flaky random crapness using an x86 system involves this week. >>>> Strangely, I don't miss that.
>>> That's interesting to hear. I got a new Dell laptop in September. Put >>> the latest Ubuntu on a USB stick, and installed it in less than 30 >>> minutes. Everything was working fine for the first time (and I had to >>> admit, this surprised me quite a bit, I have been using Linux for a >>> long time and it wasn't always this nice).
>>>> Because it is a commercial system there is a refreshing absence of >>>> whining ideologues[1], though you tend to get a different sort of >>>> annoying people[2] to make up for it.
>>>> Apple seem no more and no less unpleasant than other companies that >>>> size (though the recent flash thing gives me pause there).
>>> I had an Apple laptop around 2004-2005. It was still the Power CPU >>> series. I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 >>> months, putting up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 >>> tools were tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either quirky >>> X11 or alpha Aquamacs, etc). Then I went to Europe for a few weeks, >>> and tried to watch a DVD I rented there. I was told that I can change >>> the region setting - but only a total of 5 times. I got very angry >>> with Apple then: I paid big bucks for this laptop, and they are telling >>> me what I can do with it? Next day, I started running good old Debian >>> on it.
> If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some > reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the restriction, > but could not get them working either (I think that I had a revised > firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game at that > point). And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point > for various other reasons.
> But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, I > knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any > more, everything was just an apt-get away.
Your story doesn't make sense. Enforcing region codes is either done in software, or in hardware (i.e., the actual DVD player). If it is done in software it can be circumvented, if it is done in hardware, it can't. This is independent of the operating system you use. (I successfully used a way to circumvent region codes on an older Apple laptop using Mac OS X.)
By now I don't bother anymore. It's just a nuisance, and not very well thought through by the content providers. My internal DVD drive plays RC 2, and I have an external DVD drive for RC 1. All that region codes do is boosting the sales of DVD drives... ;)
Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> writes: > By now I don't bother anymore. It's just a nuisance, and not very well > thought through by the content providers. My internal DVD drive plays > RC 2, and I have an external DVD drive for RC 1. All that region codes > do is boosting the sales of DVD drives... ;)
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:17:34 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote: >> If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some >> reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the restriction, >> but could not get them working either (I think that I had a revised >> firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game at that point). >> And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point for various >> other reasons.
>> But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, I >> knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any >> more, everything was just an apt-get away.
> Your story doesn't make sense. Enforcing region codes is either done in > software, or in hardware (i.e., the actual DVD player). If it is done in > software it can be circumvented, if it is done in hardware, it can't.
If only the world was categorizable using these simple dichotomies :-)
I think it was "hardware", but the circumvention method was installing a new firmware for the DVD drive. I didn't bother, though.
On Mon, 31 May 2010 20:57:31 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-05-31 13:48:42 +0100, Tamas K Papp said:
>> I bought it in the US, and tried using OS X for about 5 months, putting >> up with every annoying thing (standard Unix and X11 tools were >> tolerated, but not nicely supported, Emacs was either quirky X11 or >> alpha Aquamacs, etc).
> I think this mostly explains the differing opinions. Realising I > wouldn't have to deal with X any more was (along with mot needing to put > up with ugly-as-shit, broken, x86 HW) was, for me, some kind of > experience that psychiatrists probably have a name for: I felt happy for > days. It took me significantly longer that the same might be true for > Emacs: I could just stop dealing with thousands of lines of Emacs > customisation code which broke every time I installed a new release (I
I rarely, if ever, touch my Emacs config file these days. Ubuntu keeps updating the packages whenever new versions come out, but that doesn't break things. I am not saying that you could not have the kind of experience you describe, just that mine was/is totally different.
> I just want tools that do what I want and which work without spending > the rest of my life fiddling with them.
I guess we all wish for that. But in my experience, sooner or later you do have to fiddle, or in other scenarios, it is worthwhile to fiddle. In these cases, I prefer to have the tools which are fiddle-friendly.
Again, I am sure that Macs are great for certain people. None of my comments were meant to imply that they are somehow inferior to any other alternative, just that they are not the right match for me. People have heterogenous preferences for almost all kinds for durable and nondurable goods, and computers/software are no exception.
> Pascal Costanza<p...@p-cos.net> writes: >> By now I don't bother anymore. It's just a nuisance, and not very well >> thought through by the content providers. My internal DVD drive plays >> RC 2, and I have an external DVD drive for RC 1. All that region codes >> do is boosting the sales of DVD drives... ;)
> And the use of eDonkey.
Buying several DVD drives, one for each region code, is not illegal. This is a stronger argument why region codes are nonsense, stronger than referring to illegal practices.
Note that I'm using the terms 'legal' and 'illegal' in a neutral way here, I'm not implying any value judgments here.
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:17:34 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some >>> reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the restriction, >>> but could not get them working either (I think that I had a revised >>> firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game at that point). >>> And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point for various >>> other reasons.
>>> But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, I >>> knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any >>> more, everything was just an apt-get away.
>> Your story doesn't make sense. Enforcing region codes is either done in >> software, or in hardware (i.e., the actual DVD player). If it is done in >> software it can be circumvented, if it is done in hardware, it can't.
> If only the world was categorizable using these simple dichotomies :-)
> I think it was "hardware", but the circumvention method was installing > a new firmware for the DVD drive. I didn't bother, though.
If you didn't bother, this means that switching to Debian couldn't have possibly solved your problem either.
> I rarely, if ever, touch my Emacs config file these days. Ubuntu > keeps updating the packages whenever new versions come out, but that > doesn't break things. I am not saying that you could not have the > kind of experience you describe, just that mine was/is totally > different.
Ubuntu has definitely made using linux for workstations very painless compared to how it used to be (although newer versions seems to have some issues, I tend to be careful with upgrading). Using both Ubuntu and Mac OS X, I'm very happy with both environments. And they're not all that different either, I use the same lisp environment (LispWorks) and I use Emacs and the bash shell a lot on the mac too. The main differences are aestethic and ergonomic: Everything, including LispWorks, looks prettier on the Mac, and the user interface is very consistent. I use Ubuntu for my main workstation at work, and Mac OS X for my laptop (also for Windows, which I run inside VMware Fusion), and also for my private computing needs (e.g. for my photography hobby). -- (espen)
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:02:07 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote: > On 01/06/2010 12:46, Tamas K Papp wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:17:34 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>> If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some >>>> reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the >>>> restriction, but could not get them working either (I think that I >>>> had a revised firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game >>>> at that point). >>>> And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point for >>>> various >>>> other reasons.
>>>> But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, >>>> I knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any >>>> more, everything was just an apt-get away.
>>> Your story doesn't make sense. Enforcing region codes is either done >>> in software, or in hardware (i.e., the actual DVD player). If it is >>> done in software it can be circumvented, if it is done in hardware, it >>> can't.
>> If only the world was categorizable using these simple dichotomies :-)
>> I think it was "hardware", but the circumvention method was installing >> a new firmware for the DVD drive. I didn't bother, though.
> If you didn't bother, this means that switching to Debian couldn't have > possibly solved your problem either.
You appear to be very quick to jump to conclusions. First, you claim that the story doesn't make sense, then you claim that I could not have solved my problem the way I did. Unfortunately, neither claim is warranted.
Switching to Debian and installing the appropriate decoding library did solve my problem. I don't know whether that was because Debian/Linux uses a different decoding mechanism (software instead of hardware?), or whether OS X enforced something which prevented similar software doing the same, but I do not care -- the important thing is that it worked easily in Debian after a few minutes work, and I could not get it to work on OS X, despite asking for advice on several forums and spending quite a few hours on it.
Please don't feel that you have to defend Apple/OS X: I am sure that it works fine for you, it just didn't work for me. I understand that it is possible to entertain the notion that this wasn't the fault of Apple.
OTOH, I don't think they are very keen on open architectures and relinquishing even a tiny bit of control (the iPhone App Store is a recent example). If you can live with that, that's fine. I can't.
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:02:07 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> On 01/06/2010 12:46, Tamas K Papp wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:17:34 +0200, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>>> If I recall correctly, I did get VLC, but it was not working for some >>>>> reason. I also tried various tools for circumventing the >>>>> restriction, but could not get them working either (I think that I >>>>> had a revised firmware or drive, Apple was one step ahead in the game >>>>> at that point). >>>>> And more importantly, I was fed up with OS X by that point for >>>>> various >>>>> other reasons.
>>>>> But at the moment I booted up Debian from the HD for the first time, >>>>> I knew I made the right decision. I didn't need to fight the OS any >>>>> more, everything was just an apt-get away.
>>>> Your story doesn't make sense. Enforcing region codes is either done >>>> in software, or in hardware (i.e., the actual DVD player). If it is >>>> done in software it can be circumvented, if it is done in hardware, it >>>> can't.
>>> If only the world was categorizable using these simple dichotomies :-)
>>> I think it was "hardware", but the circumvention method was installing >>> a new firmware for the DVD drive. I didn't bother, though.
>> If you didn't bother, this means that switching to Debian couldn't have >> possibly solved your problem either.
> You appear to be very quick to jump to conclusions. First, you claim > that the story doesn't make sense, then you claim that I could not > have solved my problem the way I did.
This is actually just one claim.
> Unfortunately, neither claim is warranted.
> Switching to Debian and installing the appropriate decoding library > did solve my problem. I don't know whether that was because > Debian/Linux uses a different decoding mechanism (software instead of > hardware?), or whether OS X enforced something which prevented similar > software doing the same, but I do not care -- the important thing is > that it worked easily in Debian after a few minutes work, and I could > not get it to work on OS X, despite asking for advice on several > forums and spending quite a few hours on it.
Indeed, I cannot judge how easy it was to achieve in Debian, but I certainly achieved it on OS X. It's true, Apple doesn't have an interest to make this convenient, because it would harm them.
> Please don't feel that you have to defend Apple/OS X: I am sure that > it works fine for you, it just didn't work for me. I understand that > it is possible to entertain the notion that this wasn't the fault of > Apple.
I'm not defending Apple. For example, the restrictions on what programming language to use for iPhone/iPad applications are plain ridiculous.
> OTOH, I don't think they are very keen on open architectures and > relinquishing even a tiny bit of control (the iPhone App Store is a > recent example). If you can live with that, that's fine. I can't.
I'm not sure yet what to think about the app store. Apple seems to be successful in (re)establishing business models for content providers, which in principle I think is a good thing. Quality work needs time and skills, and people need to payed for investing time and skills. Apple seems to be pushing too far in some regards, though. I'm not sure what a good balance would be.
> On 2010-05-29 18:33:58 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen said:
>> Appl's X11 support after the release of Leopard was a disaster.
> I think you mean "X11 was a disaster" don't you?
No, I don't. I am well aware that many people think so, but X11 has served me well over the years, warts and all. I am not really qualified to speculate on whether or how a networking window system could have been done better, though.
-- * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. -- Bertrand Russell
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:36:47 -0400, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: > + Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org>: >> I think you mean "X11 was a disaster" don't you?
> No, I don't. I am well aware that many people think so, but X11 has > served me well over the years, warts and all. I am not really qualified > to speculate on whether or how a networking window system could have > been done better, though.
I think that there are quite a few people who don't think that the "network" part is necessary, given that most machines capable of running X (well) are also capable of running the whole GUI, and that the partition should be elsewhere. This was the original premise of Java, as it grew out of experience with NeWS (which was a PostScript based GUI that Sun played with for a while --- I can't remember if you could run NeWS apps over a network, but I can't think of any reason why not.)
The only other networked window system that I've heard of was that of plan9. I've never used it, but I do like the model, as I've read about it. The difference from X is that it ran the window manager on the terminal, and every window was an independent communications link over a tty mux (pty-style) to some server process on the (remote) host. I don't know the details of the graphics language that was spoken over these channels, though. Thinking about it now, it could very easily have been Display PostScript, and that would have been very fine indeed...
> I think that there are quite a few people who don't think that the > "network" part is necessary, given that most machines capable of running > X (well) are also capable of running the whole GUI, and that the > partition should be elsewhere. This was the original premise of Java, as > it grew out of experience with NeWS (which was a PostScript based GUI > that Sun played with for a while --- I can't remember if you could run > NeWS apps over a network, but I can't think of any reason why not.)
I'm fairly sure NeWS stood for *network* extensible window system, and yes, it could run things over a network. It was a good idea, but it was slow on anything you could afford and Sun cocked it up in the way they cocked up almost everything.
Obviously when X was designed, a window system that would run over a network was pretty useful, because if you had a 3/50 on your desk (which would run X11 OK after the release that improved performance - R4 maybe?), but there were much bigger systems in the basement, you didn't want to run too much on the 3/50.
Nowadays it's still important, but in a way X doesn't provide. Obviously the Linux fanboys don't see it as important because they live in a world where compute power is cheap and it's easy to provide on your desk. (But no one actually cares what they think.) But think about a bank or something: they have maybe a few tens of thousands of desktops, all of which have operating systems which are busily persistently caching data. This is a hideous security & compliance nightmare for them, so there's basically nothing they'd like more than to put all of that in some central secure location and remove any persistent storage from desktops. As an added bonus they then get rid of a lot of maintenance costs. But what they need, which X can't do, is to be able to move the whole desktop to another screen, so people can move around. Of course there are systems which can do this, they're just not X.
Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> writes: > Nowadays it's still important, but in a way X doesn't provide. > Obviously the Linux fanboys don't see it as important because they > live in a world where compute power is cheap and it's easy to provide > on your desk. (But no one actually cares what they think.) But think > about a bank or something: they have maybe a few tens of thousands of > desktops, all of which have operating systems which are busily > persistently caching data. This is a hideous security & compliance > nightmare for them, so there's basically nothing they'd like more than > to put all of that in some central secure location and remove any > persistent storage from desktops. As an added bonus they then get rid > of a lot of maintenance costs. But what they need, which X can't do, > is to be able to move the whole desktop to another screen, so people > can move around. Of course there are systems which can do this, > they're just not X.
On 2010-06-03 09:56:00 +0100, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
> This is possible, using xmove.
Which is basically a proxy X server, right? So yes, you can do it by virtualising the server, which is how all these things work. I guess you could argue that virtualising the X server is better than virtualising the framebuffer (I think technically it might be, but ractically it's not).
On 2010-05-28 21:50:19 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said:
> That's the problem with lawyers, they can't say what they mean. It > would have been much simplier and clearer to have written:
> "It is forbidden to run Flash implementations from Adobe on iPhone OS."
> or:
> "It is forbidden to run any Flash implementation on iPhone OS."
On the contrary, lawyers almost always say precisely what they mean. In this case, they just mean more than "no flash." They have been careful to word this as restrictively as possible, to prevent an end-run by Adobe and others (e.g., rebranding flash, or a flash to objc compiler, a lua to objective-c compiler, etc.)
Quite clearly, Apple wants devs to:
1. only use the Apple tool chain, or tool chains approved by Apple, with the languages approved by Apple.
2. leave iPhone OS apps open to inspection, and copying/replacement by Apple without compensation (yes, that's in the license too, has been since the very first version).
3. allow Apple to deny or remove their apps from the app store for the broad range of reasons available to Apple in the agreement (security, inappropriateness, etc.).
If you submit to these conditions, you get to have Apple market your app for you to millions of users whose credit cards are already on file and for whom a purchase is a click away. All in exchange for a 30% cut that goes to Apple. Many devs consider this a value proposition, so there are thousands of apps in the app store.
Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote: +--------------- | Tamas K Papp wrote: | > Please don't feel that you have to defend Apple/OS X: I am sure that | > it works fine for you, it just didn't work for me. I understand that | > it is possible to entertain the notion that this wasn't the fault of | > Apple. | | I'm not defending Apple. For example, the restrictions on what | programming language to use for iPhone/iPad applications are plain | ridiculous. | | > OTOH, I don't think they are very keen on open architectures and | > relinquishing even a tiny bit of control (the iPhone App Store is a | > recent example). If you can live with that, that's fine. I can't. | | I'm not sure yet what to think about the app store. Apple seems to be | successful in (re)establishing business models for content providers, | which in principle I think is a good thing. Quality work needs time and | skills, and people need to payed for investing time and skills. Apple | seems to be pushing too far in some regards, though. I'm not sure what a | good balance would be. +---------------
Well, they certainly seem to be moving even *farther* "off-balance" from more recent news:
The Apple App Store police are now rejecting iPhone and iPad applications for behaving like "widgets" and "creating their own desktops," according to one developer who's busy eating his previous claims that Apple isn't evil. ... MyFrame, from Groundhog Software, layers various data and tools atop digital photos as you view them on the iPad, and three successive versions of the app were previously approved by the App Store police. But on Monday, the police called to say they'd changed their minds, accusing the app of being too widgety. The app is still available from the store, but Apple has apparently told GroundHog it's coming down.
"They refused to be pinned down to an exact reason, simply stating that they were doing a cull of any applications that presented widgets to the user," reads the Aussie's blog post. "All the guy on the phone would say is how much he liked our application, and how sorry he was, but there was nothing he could do. All we got out of him was that Apple no longer liked `widgets' and wanted all widget apps removed." ...
Said developer even wrote directly to Steve Jobs, politely asking "WTF?", and got back the following one-liner reply from Jobs:
We are not allowing apps that create their own desktops. Sorry.
On Jun 3, 12:14 am, Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2010-06-03 01:40:17 +0100, Andrew Reilly said:
> > I think that there are quite a few people who don't think that the > > "network" part is necessary, given that most machines capable of running > > X (well) are also capable of running the whole GUI, and that the > > partition should be elsewhere. This was the original premise of Java, as > > it grew out of experience with NeWS (which was a PostScript based GUI > > that Sun played with for a while --- I can't remember if you could run > > NeWS apps over a network, but I can't think of any reason why not.)
> I'm fairly sure NeWS stood for *network* extensible window system, and > yes, it could run things over a network. It was a good idea, but it > was slow on anything you could afford and Sun cocked it up in the way > they cocked up almost everything.
No, I can't agree there. They had good products, they had flops. More of a hit and miss, I'd say (Solaris is a sound, even if not comfortable, OS and ZFS is one of the best production quality single- node filesystems out there currently).
> Obviously when X was designed, a window system that would run over a > network was pretty useful, because if you had a 3/50 on your desk > (which would run X11 OK after the release that improved performance - > R4 maybe?), but there were much bigger systems in the basement, you > didn't want to run too much on the 3/50.
> Nowadays it's still important, but in a way X doesn't provide. > Obviously the Linux fanboys don't see it as important because they live > in a world where compute power is cheap and it's easy to provide on > your desk.
Yeah, that's pretty much the world I live in. Or rather that part of the world. Compute power to the desk is basically limited by the noise one can bear. Could you clarify, which part of the world you are referring to?
> (But no one actually cares what they think.)
Yes, sadly not enough are.
> But think > about a bank or something: they have maybe a few tens of thousands of > desktops, all of which have operating systems which are busily > persistently caching data. This is a hideous security & compliance > nightmare for them, so there's basically nothing they'd like more than > to put all of that in some central secure location and remove any > persistent storage from desktops. As an added bonus they then get rid > of a lot of maintenance costs. But what they need, which X can't do, > is to be able to move the whole desktop to another screen, so people > can move around. Of course there are systems which can do this, > they're just not X.
I cringe every time I walk into a Citibank or Wellsfargo branch and see all those PCs running Windows and IE and if I'm not mistaken, even with internet access (on the very same desktop). I wonder, if they ever even tried Sun's thin clients (Sun Ray)? It works great for me (not that I'd care so much about the security aspect of it or the ease of maintenance, but rather the mobility of the user session as well as the lack of noise) and it was just made for such (they seem to have enjoyed moderate success within hospitals, but I'd think banks and schools are an obvious application too).
