iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

"Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:39 AM:

>>> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
>>> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
>>> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
>>> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
>>> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>>
>> Firefox is an exception to the norm (I even used it as en example recently).
>> If the Finder were open source then well meaning people would use "advanced"
>> versions that would fracture OS X - making it seem like multiple OSs to the
>> general user.
>
> Of course, it goes without saying that the "general user" is not very
> bright. Damn those "general users" making my computing experience
> less flexible! :-)

I note your smiley, but there do seem to be a lot of folks (often Linux
users) who seem to focus on flexibility and configurability instead of ease
of use and focus. Apple tends to focus on the latter - and I think that
serves most people better.

>> This would hurt Apple's branding and, often, hurt people's
>> experience with the OS.
>
> Perhaps, though as you point out, things like Path Finder already
> exist.

But as a third party tool it is not used nearly as much. I am happy there
are alternatives for those who want them, but I suspect most people who use
it get little actual benefit in terms of doing work better of faster -
though there are, surely, some who do.

>> I will say there are also some people and some
>> situations where this would benefit people - but for those people PathFinder
>> and other projects are available.
>>
>> Apple has no obligation to make Finder open source and I think they are wise
>> to keep it closed
>
> They are wise to keep it closed-source. If nothing else, opening the
> source would get people one step closer to duplicating the Mac OS GUI
> on another OS without the threat of a lawsuit. :-)

Very true. That would also be bad for Apple.

>> it is better for them and better for many users.
>
> I'm not sure about the "better for many users" part, but OK.

And note, I say "many" - *not* all.


--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs

---

› See More: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/11/07
> 11:25 AM:
>
> > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of ****).
> >>>>
> >>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >>>> end consistent for everyone.
> >>>
> >>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> >>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> >>> wouldn't).
> >>
> >> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> >> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> >> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> >> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> >> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
> >
> > Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
> > people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
> >
> > Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
> > touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
> >
> > Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
>
> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
> and more important than most people understand.
>
> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
> do so on that point.

Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

Oxford> "At least OSX works on Linux or Apple Hardware and is fully
opensource."

That's the problem with entering threads without reading all the posts
first... :-)

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:37 AM:

> In article <C35C980C.98B06%[email protected]>,
> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers.
>
> OS X is not *largely* open source. It has some open source components,
> but the vast majority of the code is NOT open source.

Darwin is an OS in its own right - and it is open source and what OS X
"sits" on. Clearly a lot of what makes OS X be OS X *is* open source, but I
cannot say what percent.

>> I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> He was VERY clear. He pronounced OS X open source on numerous
> occasions. He has been corrected.

If he has not he should acknowledge that OS X is not fully open source.


--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

Jesus wrote:
> Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
> How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?

Who gives a flying ****, it has NOTHING to do with NOKIA and most of the
other groups this is being SPAMMED in!


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

"Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
1i7ffzt.1jwdpymmpblstN%[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:52 AM:

>> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
>> and more important than most people understand.
>>
>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> Message-ID:
> <[email protected]>
>
> Oxford> "At least OSX works on Linux or Apple Hardware and is fully
> opensource."
>
> That's the problem with entering threads without reading all the posts
> first... :-)

OK: to say "fully opensource" is clearly incorrect. No doubt.


--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:50 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> If he makes a statement such as "OS X is open source" he should
> <SNIP>Rest of the CRAP removed</SNIP>
>
> WTF has this got to do with NOKIA and all the other irrelevant
> newsgroups this is being SPAMMED in.
>
> **** OFF with your Apple **** and stop cross-posting!
>
None of the referenced groups are about religion of any sort: please stop
talking about crosses.




--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?

"Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07
11:51 AM:

> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
>> How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
>
> First of all, legally you can't do it. Apple has 100's of patents on the
> Finder so there is no way you could port it even if you had $75 billion
> in your pocket.

Offer Apple the full 75 billion to port it for your own personal use. I bet
they even help you do so.



--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?

On Nov 11, 1:45 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
> > with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
> > party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
> > part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
> > source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>
> all the great companies of the world are based on ONE thing. and that is
> "Consistency". Coke, McDonalds, Tiffany, Rolex, etc, etc.
>
> what the Linux and Windows crowd don't understand is that
> "inconsistency" is the root of all business disasters, Vista, Linux,
> JetBlue, DeLL, etc.
>
> the Finder is the crown jewel of all OSes. It provides a simple but very
> deep interface that matches well with 4 year old... all the way to an
> advanced Unix programmer. No other piece of UI software is as developed,
> flexible and tested as the Finder.
>
> yes, there are 1000's of Finder "enhancements", and that shouldn't
> change.

So inconsistency with Finder "enhancements" is OK, but some guy
recompiling Finder to include some new button is *not* OK. Right.

> but when you go from machine to machine anywhere in the world the Finder
> should work EXACTLY the same from location to location, even if you
> don't know the localized language it is in...

....so Finder "enhancements should be banned? I'm confused, Oxford.
Why is inconsistency from "enhancements" OK one moment but not OK
another? Hmm?

> it's the STANDARD of what
> makes Apple so strong. The iPhone is the same way. If an iPhone is in
> German or French, I can still use it.

Well, considering the only thing you'd probably do is drunk dial
random numbers trying to sell the iPhone, of course. You could use
any phone to do that.

> It is the SAME. The iPod also
> plays on this technique... it can be in any of 18 languages, but I can
> still operate it. That's the power of controlling the hardware and
> SOFTWARE. It's GOOD for the USER!

Apple's way is GOOD! There is only ONE WAY to do things correctly!
Apple knows better than you! You know what?! Apple shouldn't let you
move the dock to the side of the screen! Some user might get confused
when using that Mac!

> FireFox is a "port" of a PC browser and is a mess,

It's "Firefox," dumbass, and it's not a PC browser, nor is it a
"mess." It was designed to be cross-platform. Firefox 3's got native
Aqua controls, so what's your problem?

> Smart Mac users use
> Camino since it upholds the values of being "consistent"...
>
> http://www.caminobrowser.org/

Camino reeks of Safari with Gecko tacked on. In other words, it
sux. :-)

"Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07
11:51 AM:

> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
>> How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
>
> First of all, legally you can't do it. Apple has 100's of patents on the
> Finder so there is no way you could port it even if you had $75 billion
> in your pocket.
>
> 2nd is why? The Finder is just a consistent portal into consistent
> hardware.
>
> The PC and Linux worlds have no strengths in this area, so a Finder on
> poorly crafted hardware wouldn't work.

Even on well crafted hardware - the strength of the Mac is not that it is
just well designed hardware (generally) but that the hardware and software
are designed with the other in mind - and are under the same roof. *No*
other modern consumer OS can make the same claim.

> Only an end to end solution makes sense for a computing system. IF...
> you want the best... it's like the old Ma Bell Telephone System. It
> "just worked" since Bell controlled all aspects.




--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman

On Nov 11, 1:51 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
> > How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
>
> First of all, legally you can't do it. Apple has 100's of patents on the
> Finder so there is no way you could port it even if you had $75 billion
> in your pocket.

No ****, That's why "Show Package Contents" isn't a replacement to
Finder being open-source, dumbass.

> 2nd is why? The Finder is just a consistent portal into consistent
> hardware.

Maybe I like Finder and want to use it as my Windows file browser
since it's so "consistent." Or is that concept too hard for you?

> The PC and Linux worlds have no strengths in this area, so a Finder on
> poorly crafted hardware wouldn't work.

Poorly crafted hardware? **** you. You try using a ThinkPad and tell
me it's poorly-crafted. Besides, what the hell does that have to do
with a file browser?

> Only an end to end solution makes sense for a computing system. IF...
> you want the best... it's like the old Ma Bell Telephone System. It
> "just worked" since Bell controlled all aspects.
>
> Apple follows that same success.

Whatever, dumbass.

On Nov 11, 1:54 pm, Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus wrote:
> > Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
> > How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
>
> Who gives a flying ****, it has NOTHING to do with NOKIA and most of the
> other groups this is being SPAMMED in!
>
> --
> The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
> belong to.
>
> 73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
> <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT...>

Sorry about that; I forgot that Oxtard added irrelevant groups.
Followup-to has been updated (for this post, at least).

"Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:56 AM:

> On Nov 11, 1:45 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
>>> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
>>> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
>>> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
>>> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>>
>> all the great companies of the world are based on ONE thing. and that is
>> "Consistency". Coke, McDonalds, Tiffany, Rolex, etc, etc.
>>
>> what the Linux and Windows crowd don't understand is that
>> "inconsistency" is the root of all business disasters, Vista, Linux,
>> JetBlue, DeLL, etc.
>>
>> the Finder is the crown jewel of all OSes. It provides a simple but very
>> deep interface that matches well with 4 year old... all the way to an
>> advanced Unix programmer. No other piece of UI software is as developed,
>> flexible and tested as the Finder.
>>
>> yes, there are 1000's of Finder "enhancements", and that shouldn't
>> change.
>
> So inconsistency with Finder "enhancements" is OK, but some guy
> recompiling Finder to include some new button is *not* OK. Right.

Allowing enhancements and plug ins seems a reasonable middle ground... I
could even see the benefit of Apple making a more robust plug in
architecture.
>
>> but when you go from machine to machine anywhere in the world the Finder
>> should work EXACTLY the same from location to location, even if you
>> don't know the localized language it is in...
>
> ...so Finder "enhancements should be banned? I'm confused, Oxford.
> Why is inconsistency from "enhancements" OK one moment but not OK
> another? Hmm?

Much the same reason most people use enhancements on Firefox do not
re-compile it or look for a fork of the general code.

>> it's the STANDARD of what
>> makes Apple so strong. The iPhone is the same way. If an iPhone is in
>> German or French, I can still use it.
>
> Well, considering the only thing you'd probably do is drunk dial
> random numbers trying to sell the iPhone, of course. You could use
> any phone to do that.

That was childish of you. The point was the UI consistency.

>> It is the SAME. The iPod also
>> plays on this technique... it can be in any of 18 languages, but I can
>> still operate it. That's the power of controlling the hardware and
>> SOFTWARE. It's GOOD for the USER!
>
> Apple's way is GOOD! There is only ONE WAY to do things correctly!
> Apple knows better than you!

He did not say Apple knew better than him.

> You know what?! Apple shouldn't let you move the dock to the side of the
> screen! Some user might get confused when using that Mac!

I know in school computer labs I lock it on the bottom and not-hidden,
though a user can alter it while logged in (there is one shared account for
all students). Upon logout and login it goes back to the bottom.

>> FireFox is a "port" of a PC browser and is a mess,
>
> It's "Firefox," dumbass, and it's not a PC browser, nor is it a
> "mess." It was designed to be cross-platform. Firefox 3's got native
> Aqua controls, so what's your problem?

For now Firefox is excellent on Windows and Linux but only so-so on OS X.
Firefox 3 might make that better. Mac users expect greater consistency - it
is what they are used to.

>> Smart Mac users use
>> Camino since it upholds the values of being "consistent"...
>>
>> http://www.caminobrowser.org/
>
> Camino reeks of Safari with Gecko tacked on. In other words, it
> sux. :-)

I prefer Safari myself.


--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

On Nov 11, 2:04 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/11/07 11:56 AM:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 1:45 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
> >>> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
> >>> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
> >>> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
> >>> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>
> >> all the great companies of the world are based on ONE thing. and that is
> >> "Consistency". Coke, McDonalds, Tiffany, Rolex, etc, etc.
>
> >> what the Linux and Windows crowd don't understand is that
> >> "inconsistency" is the root of all business disasters, Vista, Linux,
> >> JetBlue, DeLL, etc.
>
> >> the Finder is the crown jewel of all OSes. It provides a simple but very
> >> deep interface that matches well with 4 year old... all the way to an
> >> advanced Unix programmer. No other piece of UI software is as developed,
> >> flexible and tested as the Finder.
>
> >> yes, there are 1000's of Finder "enhancements", and that shouldn't
> >> change.
>
> > So inconsistency with Finder "enhancements" is OK, but some guy
> > recompiling Finder to include some new button is *not* OK. Right.
>
> Allowing enhancements and plug ins seems a reasonable middle ground... I
> could even see the benefit of Apple making a more robust plug in
> architecture.
>
>
>
> >> but when you go from machine to machine anywhere in the world the Finder
> >> should work EXACTLY the same from location to location, even if you
> >> don't know the localized language it is in...
>
> > ...so Finder "enhancements should be banned? I'm confused, Oxford.
> > Why is inconsistency from "enhancements" OK one moment but not OK
> > another? Hmm?
>
> Much the same reason most people use enhancements on Firefox do not
> re-compile it or look for a fork of the general code.
>
> >> it's the STANDARD of what
> >> makes Apple so strong. The iPhone is the same way. If an iPhone is in
> >> German or French, I can still use it.
>
> > Well, considering the only thing you'd probably do is drunk dial
> > random numbers trying to sell the iPhone, of course. You could use
> > any phone to do that.
>
> That was childish of you. The point was the UI consistency.
>
> >> It is the SAME. The iPod also
> >> plays on this technique... it can be in any of 18 languages, but I can
> >> still operate it. That's the power of controlling the hardware and
> >> SOFTWARE. It's GOOD for the USER!
>
> > Apple's way is GOOD! There is only ONE WAY to do things correctly!
> > Apple knows better than you!
>
> He did not say Apple knew better than him.

He's being very inconsistent. I obviously see that releasing the
source code to Finder would be a stupid thing for Apple to do at the
moment. However, with Oxtard claiming I could do the same things I
could do with source code by opening the Finder.app package, I had to
respond. A good plugin architecture for Finder would be great! I'm
all for people being able to customize without being forced to have
such customizations in their face. However, one moment he's saying
inconsistencies from a recomplied Finder are bad because it doesn't
look the same, while another moment he's saying extensions are fine,
even though Finder no longer looks the same! He needs to be
consistent.


> > You know what?! Apple shouldn't let you move the dock to the side of the
> > screen! Some user might get confused when using that Mac!
>
> I know in school computer labs I lock it on the bottom and not-hidden,
> though a user can alter it while logged in (there is one shared account for
> all students). Upon logout and login it goes back to the bottom.

Yes, lock-down is good for public areas. I don't let people change
the dock at all. The point is that I'm sick of people saying that
nobody should have the option of changing things because every
computer won't look *exactly* the same. That's stupid logic.
Different people work in different ways. In fact, Oxford's whole
retarded thing about being able to use Finder in a different language
doesn't even make sense - the icons are the same. It has nothing to
do with the layout, which the user could change completely with a
stock Finder.

> >> FireFox is a "port" of a PC browser and is a mess,
>
> > It's "Firefox," dumbass, and it's not a PC browser, nor is it a
> > "mess." It was designed to be cross-platform. Firefox 3's got native
> > Aqua controls, so what's your problem?
>
> For now Firefox is excellent on Windows and Linux but only so-so on OS X.

It's not great because of the non-native controls, but it's not like
it's perfect on Windows. Just look at Firefox 1.5/2 under Windows
Classic. Thankfully, that too is being fixed in 3.

> Firefox 3 might make that better.

It will. Native form controls! Woo! You can check it out now with a
nightly build if you like. Panther's no longer supported, but you've
got Leopard now, so that doesn't matter.

> Mac users expect greater consistency - it
> is what they are used to.
>
> >> Smart Mac users use
> >> Camino since it upholds the values of being "consistent"...
>
> >>http://www.caminobrowser.org/
>
> > Camino reeks of Safari with Gecko tacked on. In other words, it
> > sux. :-)
>
> I prefer Safari myself.

Eh. It's the little things that annoy me with Safari. One great
example of Apple's drive to not let things be customized much at all:
there's no way in settings to get Safari to *ask* where to download
files! You have to pre-define a folder. What if I don't want to?
Camino does the same stupid thing.

Jesus wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Innews:[email protected],
>> Oxford <[email protected]>spewed forth:> Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Poor Mark has to really dig around to find bad news on the highly
>>> successful launch of iPhone in the UK, and Germany.
>> <snipped BS>
>>
>> Poor oxford, has to keep morphin so that he will be seen.
>> WTF your problem, **** for brains?
>> Please keep your **** out of NGs that have nothing to do with iphone.
>> We all know you think its the best thing since sliced bread, but there is a
>> majoirty of people that just don't give a ****.
>> So please STFU
>
> We don't want him either! Any way we can get him permanently booted
> from Usenet? :-P
>

He really, really wants to have Steve Jobs baby so if someone could just
hook them up...

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Oxford wrote:
> Darwin 6.0.2 is available as a bootable ISO CD image.
> * x86 ISO image (315 MB)
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/proj...0/release.html

Darwin 6.0.2 is at least three releases of Mac OS X old.

The current version of Darwin, corresponding to Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5),
is 9.0. The version of Darwin corresponding to the current version of
Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4.10) is 8.10.

Incidentally, anyone who has ever tried the bootable CD of Darwin 6.0.2
found that it wasn't particular useful. Assuming that you can get it to
boot, it puts you into a UNIX shell on the console. It doesn't recognize
VMware's network device, so no network is available.

> Apple's other projects can be downloaded as well...
> Kerberos

For Leopard, perhaps.

But not for Tiger:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darw...e/10.4.10.ppc/
and
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darw...e/10.4.10.x86/
both list the current Tiger release of Kerberos is being
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darw...s-65.15.tar.gz
but that link returns "Download unavailable".

Other listed "open source" modules, such as JavaScriptCore, are missing
for both Leopard and Tiger.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.