Re: So in plain english...
Fads in fashion become dated quickly.
That must mean your house looks just wretched.
2197 posts • joined 26 Jan 2009
Fads in fashion become dated quickly.
That must mean your house looks just wretched.
> One can do, but intelligent syncing offers quite a lot.
Like I said. The rest of us aren't Shallow Alto Hipsters.
Most people haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, never mind swimming in it. They're like the youth of today. They don't get platform wars. They don't even get platforms. They don't even view Windows as special or distinct. Never mind Apple products.
The more you use Apple products, the more you are trapped by them.
> One can do, but intelligent syncing offers quite a lot.
No it doesn't. If your library is larger than your device then you are stuck with an interface that is shockingly primitive for what it needs to do. It's pretty much a crude 80s style file manager that insulates you from your actual files. This yields something that is unsophisticated and inconsitent with interfaces the user may be familiar with. It also yields something that is less flexible and needs to be "hacked" around.
Non-Apple products in general handle photos better because they don't try to second guess your sense of organization. The rest represent an outdated notion of what mobile device is. They have no real place in iTunes anymore.
So iTunes becomes this bloated monstrosity suffering from feature creep standing in the way of alternate approaches.
It's the least Unix thing you could possibly come up with.
If I can't manage a device myself that also means that developers can't do it for me either. There is no escape from Apple mediocrity or the community group think that tends to shout down more creative uses.
iTunes is a dinosaur from a time before when a mobile device could fend for itself. The first versions ran on hardware LESS powerful than current devices. The gatekeeper/crutch role no longer makes any sense.
"Converting" the iTunes library?
Assuming they don't have a pile of DRM encumbered books, audio books, and movies they can just copy their music files to their phone. Just plug it in and Drag & Drop.
The fact that Apple likes to scramble things can make is more complicated though.
Content with Apple DRM only plays on Apple devices. If you have been an Apple-only media glutton then you're kind of out of luck. Apple has helped turn something like a VHS tape into something that would keep you trapped with a single hardware vendor.
As cool as it is to plug my phone into a powered hub and a 3TB hard drive is, it's just not as practical as having more internal storage.
Although it's nice that Android vendors don't get in the way of this kind of thing too much. A 128G thumb drive is awkward but still doable.
Upgradable storage is too obvious to even be a point of contention with any other bit of consumer electronics.
Yet for iPod wannabes it seems somehow more tolerable. There's really no reason for it.
Expandable storage means that someone that is not that adaptable to begin with can continue using the device they've already gotten used to because a device is less likely to become obsolete.
Expecting people to constantly adapt to new devices every time their requirements change or tech changes marginally. Now that is silly.
Sure some users are more demanding. They are also more likely to be Android users.
You want to use the government as a blunt instrument against your enemies but you can't be bothered to go to any sort of trouble yourself. Now THAT is a "sense of entitlement". The idea that "everything is owned' is a very harmful thing. It mires many useful and creative works in a maze of licensing issues.
Copyrights should be short and simple. The bulk of material should not cause burdens for current creators. This includes stuff as simple as "happy birthday".
The default assumption should be "it is not owned" and the consequences for mistakes in this regard should not be dire.
The effort to "protect" something should actually be related to it's actual value.
Destroying the US Patent system? Load me up on "knockoffs".
Your propaganda about Apple's bad patents are why the whole system needs to be burned down. It's like a house infested with black mold. It's better to nuke it from orbit. It's already too far gone.
Idiots like you should be forced to use MS-DOS.
> Got both Apple and HTC Android phones in the family. I can only speak from personal experience.
About 5 minutes after getting her hands on a Galaxy Tab 2 the missus dumped her iPad and her iPhone.
Got tired of waiting for the iPhone5 and got an GS3 instead. Likes it better than the iPhone. Not bothered by any of the usual bogeyman that fanboys tend to bring up in their usual attempts to engage in fear mongering.
What's to have trouble with? Just put your Music anywhere on the device and it will get sorted. This is 2012. Our phones are more powerful than the first machines that ran iTunes. The idea that you need some gatekeeper software on your PC is just outdated.
iTunes should be running on the phone.
> How can you be so negative about the iPhone 5? When it supposed to have ground breaking features, such as the ability to bluetooth a file between 2 devices.
Been done already. They even have ads for this everywhere and even at the movies. Are you a shut-in or something?
> Henry Ford invented the modern car
Even Ford didn't claim that.
The "you must be a mechanic fallacy".
You don't have to be a mechanic to benefit from the fact that the guy next to you can be one. The fact that you can be means that he can be and he can do all of the hard work for you.
Although more than anything, a product that isn't "geek hostile" is likely to have more thought put into it. The demanding user will be considered. It doesn't have to be a "geek". It could just be someone that puts the product through it's paces. You can do that without being a "geek" or a "mechanic".
Apple's "let's lower the bar" mentality is what led me to hack and jailbreak my iPhone. It should not have been necessary but it was. It was just a reflection of Apple ignoring the serious user. This made an iPhone more of a bother than an Android.
...you kid but in all likelihood I can probably attach a floppy drive to my phone.
That's the difference between a platform that enables the end user and one that just puts up pointles barriers.
...except this is a DVD jukebox. It's not some mission critical Oracle database. The "enterprise" requirements just aren't there. RAID is a means to exploit low cost disks. A 3TB disk pack simply doesn't need to be $1400 for what a Kscape system is doing with it.
I can build 2 arrays capable of doing the job of the overpriced kscape one (due to compression) and still come out ahead by an order of magnitude.
I can also avoid the "packages" that average $28 per DVD too.
That markup likely has nothing to do with the actual hardware and is likely just a means to pay for the "wipe your arse" level of service that you get with a device like this.
$30K buys a lot of NAS. That's getting into Netapp territory. Kscape fans even like drawing that kind of comparison to make their kit seem less absurdly priced (I kid you not).
The OP is probably talking about something that is an open solution that doesn't keep you paid for media trapped and in the exact same format as it came on (from the physical media).
For $600 I could have a bespoke tower PC ready to accept a SATA RAID cage more than capable of doing the same job as a $30K Kscape array. It's like Macs. You don't fixate on the specs. You concentrate on what you need to get the job done.
Such a server would allow ANY device to partake. I would not need a $3000 thin client decoder.
Plus I could take anything with me wherever I go.
I call bullsh*t on the 42TB storage.
I tried pricing out my own setup based on what little information I could tease from support forums online. A mere 30K is not going to get you 42TB of Kaledescape storage.
I already have a 2000 disk jukebox setup.
You can build an entire commodity based multi-room system for what Kscape will try to charge you for one thin client decoder.
To top it all off, this article includes a device that has has been declared illegal.
The Kaledescape is in a bit of legal limbo right now.
The whole lot seemed to be a total fantasy completely divorced from reality or requirements of any sort beyond being really expensive.
> Who really fucking cares about you and your missus?
Every fanboy like you foaming at the mouth that criticism is not allowed because we haven't even owned or used the product.
I need to grow up? I'm not the one that needs to conflate my phone with a Ferrari. I'm not the one that needs to validate my choices with the crowd. I'm not the one that needs to impress random strangers.
I am more demanding. I'm probably about 5 or 10 years ahead of the average Apple user. This is epecially true for the ones that like to fixate on music when the question of DRM comes up.
Oh great... the "resale value" argument.
Just about the most worthless thing that an Apple fanboy can say.
If you have to drone on about that kind of camel trader stupidity then you've already run off the rails and lost the point of owning things (tech or otherwise) in general.
You should realy concentrate on the reason why YOU would want to want something rather than coming up with lame reasons to try and impress total strangers just to convince yourself you make the right choice. You must have a really low opinion of your own decision making ability.
They guy with the Ferrari is trapped in traffic like the rest of us.
You on the other hand are just some loser that thinks that overpaying for a cheap trinket makes you like that Ferrari driver or that he or you are any better than the rest of us. You are a stupid annoying moron. THAT is what tends to get people riled.
An Apple product is nothing to envy. Especially not heavily subidized mobile devices.
Me and the missus both ditched our iPhones for Androids.
A 7 inch Android tablet was what really pushed her away from Apple.
Apple is no Bentley.
You would think that this "satisfaction" thing would drive market share. This is certainly true considering that there are few barriers to either enter or exit a mobile platform. These phones are all equally well subsidized.
Perhaps non-Apple users are just more demanding.
It's easier to be disappointed if you set your standards higher.
Things don't "just work" on Windows. People buy Windows because it's been the dominant platform since you had to do your own memory management by hand. Technological considerations aren't really a factor at all. DOS or Windows is what got bundled with PCs. IBM had trouble coping and Be couldn't even give their OS away.
It's idiotic to try and lump in Macs with Windows. Macs have always been an also-ran. They are this now and they were this when they were unable to compete against MS-DOS.
By the time Linux came around, MS-DOS was already deeply entrenched.
Apple hasn't had nearly the same amount of lead time. Their advantage is much smaller and apps are generally cheap. The gap between Android and PhoneOS is much smaller than it ever was for WinDOS and any of it's rivals. Android as a successful phone platform will ensure that this gap only shrinks.
"I can hold it in my hand" is a pretty compelling USP.
I originally got a 7" Samsung tablet to give to my kid but the wife took it instead. She replaced her iPad with it. It's big enough for her requirements plus it is more portable. It's good enough while being small and cheap.
She dumped her iPhone for an S3 too. Got tired of waiting for the iPhone 5.
A 7" tablet is cheap enough to be an impulse buy, an Apple tablet not so much.
Are you living in 1996?
There's more to multimedia than music files.
The Tivo approach is no different from the original TV approach from the 50s. The only thing that has changed is that what you choose is watched on your own terms. People were avoiding things like Hee-Haw and Lawrence Welk long before time shifting technology existed.
If "specs really don't mean a whole lot" then why bother? So you can boot faster? So Exploder can load faster. Once you've done both, the reason for bothering at all quickly dissapates.
What you describe as a benchmark sounds suspiciously like a bulk copy or a backup. Some people do actually load, manipulate, and copy significant amounts of data.
If a non-trivial copy operation isn't going to be any faster than what you get wtih a cheap spinny disk, then why bother at all? Why buy into the hype?
My main problem is "helpful" types that make clueless "suggestions" based on bad information and faulty assumptions. There's a lot of mythology to go around. There's some about Linux and there are equal amounts for Windows and MacOS.
I really wonder if the ones infatuated with Macs have actually used them.
Stealing ideas is great. That's how progress in general work. However, you have to understand what you are copying in the context you find it and how it relates to where you want to transplant it to.
> # apt-get install bugzilla
Like I said: YOU choose your level of involvement with Project Mayhem.
You can use the App Store approach or you can build from source. It's entirely up to you. Admittedly, this leaves the whole thing vulnerable to criticism by idiots that will find the hard way to do something even in MacOS.
Your post is outdated nonsense. It's FUD from another century.
You don't need to forge your own tools to use it. You can chose your own level of involvement. That can be as little as possible or as much as possible. This nonsense that you have to be a coder in order to use it is just assinine. It really wasn't even true in the 90s. Never mind now.
It just gets repeated over and over again by idiots.
"commercial point of view" is nonsense. The platform continues to grow and thrive independent of this.
That is the whole point of Free Software to begin with. Everything is independent of a "commercial point of view". You don't have to worry about Atari and Commodore failing or Netscape having it's air supply cut off. Free Software exists outside and despite of the market.
It's like MS-DOS and Windows but without the bling.
> a) People should know how to do stuff through the shell
Nonsense. Being a Unix user doesn't mean being a masochist. It means being lazy.
If I ever even touch the shell it is to be lazy.
Something is faster or more automated than the drudge work of doing some visual thing n+ times.
Beyond that, the "burden of the shell" is gravely overrated/
No. You are not likely to look at your friends with their Macs and start to get jealous. If anything, those Mac users will likely have the same exact problems as you do.
A Mac is nothing to lord over Linux. It doesn't matter how overhyped and trendy it is. It still has the same "but it's not the monopoly platform" problems that Linux does.
Short of games, if you aren't brand fixated to the exclusion of what you actually want to do then none of the platforms are at much of a disadvantage to the others. Although Macs have an NIH and group think problem.
> But when the user wants to watch some youtube flicks it might get frustrated. Put in a film on DVD: frustration again.
Nope. Both are pretty simple and actually rather stupid things to try to criticize Linux for.
These idiots whine about inconsistency and confusion and churn and completely ignore this kind of thing when it happens in Windows. Windows game development is the essence of churn and this is where you're going to get your most severe problems.
Who cares about the init system really? Miguel is just on crack when it comes to that sort of thing.
I laugh when I hear cries about Linux being tough for (presumably commercial) software vendors when I see serious Unix vendors dealing with even wider variations between different Unixen.
Stallman doesn't go out of his way to be disliked.
What he actually does is to NOT go out of his way to be liked.
He has his position and his reasons and he sticks to that.
A certain type of herd follower misinterprets this as being anti-social.
If Linus had never been born, the GNU tools would still be very useful on other commercial Unixen.
Free Software doesn't begin and end with Linux.
The kernel is a key bit but it doesn't make the rest of the OS irrelevant.
> You may want to actually get some facts, or better still experience
Been there. Done that. Know better than to trust hysterical nonsense posted to the web.
Beyond any but the most trivial deployments, Apple products suffer from the simple problem that Apple is not a business vendor and it isn't an enterprise vendor. Their idea of support isn't even suitable for a discriminating consumer. If you're talking about a business, then forget about it.
> Your comments about AD are just clueless. It goes way beyond LDAP.
All of the Microsoft marketing materials make AD sound just like LDAP.
If there's more to it than that then you certainly helping clear anything up.
Although the main problem here is "fitting in". So it really doesn't matter how good AD is supposed to be if you are supporting a bunch of Windows machine. It's like how msoffice will always be best at reading a word document.
A Mini under the stairs would be a big sprawling mess compared to any comparable PC option.
The biggest problem by far with running any MacOS server (or just MacOS in general) is being forced to deal with Apple hardware. MacOS server could sorely use the ability to be run virtualized.
Of course Apple would never allow this.
Nonsense. Macs are more expensive and they aren't cheaper to operate. The support options for Macs also gravely lag behind the options available from PC vendors. A PC can quietly do it's job until it's costs have been amortized and you are ready to discard them.
"Support costs" if any are driven by helpless types that are going to be bothersome regardless of what OS you're using.
I think someone said something about Mac Server being for 1-10 person offices.
You're unlikely to outgrow a NAS appliance with such a puny office.
No. Laymen just like to pretend they're helpless rather than taking responsibility for themselves.
A lot of this stuff is pretty trivial. The boundary between what is and what is not a server is pretty arbitrary. That's especially true when your own "server product" offers very little and is just an extra app.
Stuff like file sharing is something that any Windows user from 1994 should be able to handle. The GUI for setting this up is terribly trivial and always has been.
If this product doesn't offer serious Mac-only services then you've really got to wonder what the point is.
While GigE doesn't matter much for "Internet" type stuff, it can certainly be handy for home networking. It's nice to be able to throw things around the home network at 100MB/s and to do it with cheap commodity parts and industry standard interfaces. If they can figure out how to bump that up to 100GB/s then all the better.
The really interesting bits of Thunderbolt minus the hype.
This dock concept goes back to the 80s. You remember that company that Steve founded after he left Apple?
This stuff is old enough that any relevant patents should be expired by now.
I used a dock on my Linux desktop in the 90s.
Nonsense. Even 30 and 40 years ago Lego sets were still kits intended to build a particular thing like a space ship or police station. The only thing that has really changed over the years is that major movies are now being licensed by Lego and it's competitors.
The whole "bucket of bricks" versus a kit is as it has always been: up to the person.
Besides, Legos have always been too expensive for a "bucket of bricks" approach.
Even now your "bucket of bricks" is likely heavily augmented by competitors that can now finally make compatible bricks. Talk about the long reach of patents...
It doesn't matter if they "stole it" or they "paid for it".
They took someone else's work and used it as the basis as their own. It's exactly what they are accusing Samsung of. They just had the benefit of a less well developed legal framework around computing technology.
Otherwise Apple might not even exist today.
You might be luck to get to use MS-DOS.
> That's not long after they produced the first GUI based computers outside of a research lab.
So? That research lab is prior art.
The fact that something is hidden from you laymen doens't mean it hasn't been invented yet.
Also, anything from 1987 should be well expired by now patent-wise.