http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 

On Apr 22, 7:48=A0am, "Rotten Apple" <rot...@pple.com> wrote:
> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iph...

OK, I know I shouldn't, but I'll respond. First, note that this is
about the 1st generation iPhone, and many of the author's criticisms
have been addressed with new versions of the phone and/or the OS.
Second, note that the first words in the article are from the author
saying how much he loves his iPhone.

As trolling, this rates about a 1 of 10. You can do better.

In article <DZ%zn.135706$ao7.63931@newsfe21.iad>,
 "Rotten Apple" <rotten@pple.com> wrote:

> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 

And the relevance of a review of the iPhone as it was on opening day 
is... ...what?

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

Rotten Apple wrote:
> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
> 
> 

There are more long-standing issues:


    * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
everyone's phones.
     * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
(DRM) technology.
     * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
track you without your knowledge.
     * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
and Theora.
     * iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on 
the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media 
formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

"This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.

.. . .

There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the 
iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly 
seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own phone.

Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is 
manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of 
an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly 
chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position 
Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for 
the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel 
luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
 Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rotten Apple wrote:
> > http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> There are more long-standing issues:
> 
> 
>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> everyone's phones.

Wow. $99.

>      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
> (DRM) technology.

Yup. And get used to it.

>      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
> track you without your knowledge.

Nonsense.

>      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
> and Theora.

Wrong.

>      * iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on 
> the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media 
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.
> 
> "This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.

Yup. And...

> 
> . . .
> 
> There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the 
> iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly 
> seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own phone.
> 
> Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is 
> manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of 
> an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly 
> chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position 
> Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for 
> the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel 
> luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

LOL

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
 Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rotten Apple wrote:
> > http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> There are more long-standing issues:
> 
> 
>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> everyone's phones.

This statement in highly misleading to people who don't understand the 
special definition of the word 'free' that's being used. There are, of 
course, tens of thousands of $0 apps for the iPhone.

>      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
> (DRM) technology.

I'm not sure how a computing device can 'endorse' something.

>      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
> track you without your knowledge.

No more than other cell phones.

>      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
> and Theora.

Which nobody really cares about except open source ideologues.

>      * iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on 
> the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media 
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

The what?

> "This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.
> 
> . . .
> 
> There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the 
> iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly 
> seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own phone.
> 
> Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is 
> manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of 
> an alternative community.

The author of the article you're quoting from doesn't understand what 
people see in Apple devices, so he assumes they must all be deluded. 
Those of us who actually appreciate things like design and understand 
user experience have a rather different perspective.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Apr 24, 9:50=A0pm, Nick Ballard <nrball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rotten Apple wrote:
> >http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iph...
>
> There are more long-standing issues:
>

> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management
> (DRM) technology.

Do you buy or rent DVD's?  Do you use the HDMI connector on your TV?

> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others=
 to
> track you without your knowledge.

Got news for you -- every cell phone tracks your whereabouts and
provides ways for others to track you.  What in particular are you
talking about?


> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorb=
is
> and Theora.

The iPhone won't play DRM-free music?  When did it stop playing
regular old MP3, AAC, WAV, and AIFF music.  Newsflash, Theora and Ogg
Vorbis are technically awful formats.  This is no great secret.

> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives=
 on
> the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.
>

http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo_FreeRunner

"The software available on the phone makes it suitable for power users
and developers only -- it is not yet ready for the general consumer."

"With most distributions the FreeRunner is working as a reliable
phone. However it still has usability issues and many advanced
features are still missing."
> Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
> manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
> an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
> chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
> Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
> the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
> luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g


So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
the general consumer"?

In article 
<0ef924ad-2c26-4cf6-9994-cba337afd4a4@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
 KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
> > manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
> > an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
> > chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
> > Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
> > the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
> > luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
> 
> 
> So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
> the general consumer"?

Well, you have source code, right? Implementing all the functionality it 
took Apple years to get right is just a project for a long weekend, I'm 
sure.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:

> Rotten Apple wrote:
>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
>> 
>> 
>
> There are more long-standing issues:
>
>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> everyone's phones.

Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
is only right.

>      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
> (DRM) technology.

Good. Or the developers and artists would have their apps/material
stolen by freetards.

>      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
> track you without your knowledge.

So do ALL cellphones.

>      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
> and Theora.

IF true that is bad. It also wont play Flash. Which is good.

>      * iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on 
> the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media 
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

"On the horizon". Yes. I see ...

>
> "This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.
>
> . . .
>
> There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the 
> iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly 
> seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own
> phone.

And it makes the unit a lot more reliable.


You really are the son of Rexx.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

> In article 
> <0ef924ad-2c26-4cf6-9994-cba337afd4a4@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
>> > manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
>> > an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
>> > chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
>> > Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
>> > the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
>> > luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
>> >
>> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
>> 
>> 
>> So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
>> the general consumer"?
>
> Well, you have source code, right? Implementing all the functionality it 
> took Apple years to get right is just a project for a long weekend, I'm 
> sure.

According to Jed it is.

But Hey! The OpenMoko was Open Source wasn't it? Just branch the code
for that!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLM!!!!!!!!!!!!

In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Rotten Apple wrote:
> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> > There are more long-standing issues:
> >
> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> > everyone's phones.
> 
> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
> is only right.

I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of 
developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell 
self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's 
involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an 
absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of 
implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy 
protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to 
discover your app.

These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie 
shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing 
great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate 
serial numbers.

Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not 
actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to 
make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great 
app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks 
for it instead of giving it away free with source code.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <a76da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
> > In article 
> > <0ef924ad-2c26-4cf6-9994-cba337afd4a4@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
> >> > manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
> >> > an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
> >> > chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
> >> > Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
> >> > the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
> >> > luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
> >> the general consumer"?
> >
> > Well, you have source code, right? Implementing all the functionality it 
> > took Apple years to get right is just a project for a long weekend, I'm 
> > sure.
> 
> According to Jed it is.
> 
> But Hey! The OpenMoko was Open Source wasn't it? Just branch the code
> for that!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ROTFLM!!!!!!!!!!!!

This article: 
http://blog.bitquabit.com/2009/07/01/one-which-i-call-out-hacker-news/

is a really great explanation of just how misguided this sort of "all 
the important bits of [successful product X] could be implemented in a 
weekend" thinking is.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

> In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Rotten Apple wrote:
>> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> > There are more long-standing issues:
>> >
>> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
>> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
>> > everyone's phones.
>> 
>> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
>> is only right.
>
> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of 
> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell 
> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's 
> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an 
> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of 
> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy 
> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to 
> discover your app.

Exactly. When I was a lot younger I signed off some game SW I had
written to a distributor - never heard from them again. Robbed me
blind. Apple are ensuring good coverage, visibility and hosting support
etc. 30% is a bargain.

ONLY in COLA are the people so dumb that they think they could possibly
distribute and support their own SW for less and make more money.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

R> In article <a76da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>> 
>> > In article 
>> > <0ef924ad-2c26-4cf6-9994-cba337afd4a4@12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> >  KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> > Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
>> >> > manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
>> >> > an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
>> >> > chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
>> >> > Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
>> >> > the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
>> >> > luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
>> >> the general consumer"?
>> >
>> > Well, you have source code, right? Implementing all the functionality it 
>> > took Apple years to get right is just a project for a long weekend, I'm 
>> > sure.
>> 
>> According to Jed it is.
>> 
>> But Hey! The OpenMoko was Open Source wasn't it? Just branch the code
>> for that!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 
>> ROTFLM!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This article: 
> http://blog.bitquabit.com/2009/07/01/one-which-i-call-out-hacker-news/
>
> is a really great explanation of just how misguided this sort of "all 
> the important bits of [successful product X] could be implemented in a 
> weekend" thinking is.

Yup. Good article.

,----
| And you need to make sure that users don’t upvote or downvote another
| user too many times in a certain amount of time, to prevent
| spambots. Probably going to have to implement a spam filter, too, come
| to think of it, even in the basic design, and you also need to support
| user icons, and you’re going to have to find a sanitizing HTML library
| you really trust and that interfaces well with Markdown (provided you do
| want to reuse that awesome editor StackOverflow has, of course). You’ll
| also need to purchase, design, or find widgets for all the controls,
| plus you need at least a basic administration interface so that
| moderators can moderate, and you’ll need to implement that scaling karma
| thing so that you give users steadily increasing power to do things as
| they go.
`----

COLA loons will look puzzled and ask why you need certain features
exactly. And probably go to stackoverflow for their answer ...

On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
> Rotten Apple wrote:
>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
>>
>
> There are more long-standing issues:
>
>
> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
> everyone's phones.

That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.

Is this such a hardship for you to endure?

> * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)
> technology.

So what?

> * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track
> you without your knowledge.

False. By that same token, every smartphone has this "flaw."
And at times it can actually be useful.


> * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and
> Theora.

LOL

> * iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the
> horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

There you go.

>
> "This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.
>
> . . .
>
> There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the
> iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly
> seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own phone.
>
> Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
> manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
> an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
> chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
> Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
> the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
> luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:54:48 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Rotten Apple wrote:
>> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
iphone/
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > There are more long-standing issues:
>> >
>> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a
>> >     tax
>> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>> > on everyone's phones.
>> 
>> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
>> is only right.
> 
> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> discover your app.
> 
> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
> shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
> great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
> serial numbers.
> 
> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
> actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
> make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
> app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
> for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
> 
> [snip]

And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software 
from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...


-- 
Rick

In article <FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:54:48 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Rotten Apple wrote:
> >> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
> iphone/
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> > There are more long-standing issues:
> >> >
> >> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a
> >> >     tax
> >> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
> >> > on everyone's phones.
> >> 
> >> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
> >> is only right.
> > 
> > I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> > developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> > self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> > involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
> > absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> > implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> > protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> > discover your app.
> > 
> > These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
> > shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
> > great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
> > serial numbers.
> > 
> > Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
> > actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
> > make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
> > app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
> > for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
> > 
> > [snip]
> 
> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software 
> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...

Which is both good and bad.  Good, maybe even great, if the app is 
actually optimized for that particular box.  Bad if it isn't or even 
maybe it doesn't work well at all on whichever of the few hardware 
configs of upcoming touchpad coming.

The problem of course, is you have no way of knowing until you actually 
try the software out.

In theory, I like the open approach better.  But in practical useage, 
I'll take the more controlled approach because I am assured the software 
does what it says it does and works just right on the iPad/Touch/iPhone.

-- 
Lloyd

Nashton wrote:

> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
iphone/
>>>
>>
>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>
>>
>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>> everyone's phones.
> 
> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
> blocked.

You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
"Porn" like that?

> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?

You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High 
Priest "The Steve"
 

-- 
Twenty Percent of Zero is Better than Nothing.
                -- Walt Kelly

"PeterK�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
> Nashton wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
> iphone/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>
>>>
>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>> everyone's phones.
>>
>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>> blocked.
>
> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
> "Porn" like that?

Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is now 
allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an additional few 
days for the app.


>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>
> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
> Priest "The Steve"

So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your cultist 
point of view?


 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:35:25 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:54:48 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Rotten Apple wrote:
>> >> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-
the-
>> iphone/
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> > There are more long-standing issues:
>> >> >
>> >> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay
>> >> >     a tax
>> >> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't
>> >> > be on everyone's phones.
>> >> 
>> >> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app.
>> >> As is only right.
>> > 
>> > I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>> > developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>> > self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>> > involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>> > an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>> > implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>> > protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>> > discover your app.
>> > 
>> > These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>> > indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>> > writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>> > down pirate serial numbers.
>> > 
>> > Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
>> > not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>> > developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
>> > writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
>> > couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
>> > code.
>> > 
>> > [snip]
>> 
>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> 
> Which is both good and bad.  Good, maybe even great, if the app is
> actually optimized for that particular box.  Bad if it isn't or even
> maybe it doesn't work well at all on whichever of the few hardware
> configs of upcoming touchpad coming.
> 
> The problem of course, is you have no way of knowing until you actually
> try the software out.
> 
> In theory, I like the open approach better.  But in practical useage,
> I'll take the more controlled approach because I am assured the software
> does what it says it does and works just right on the iPad/Touch/iPhone.

I'm waiting for the price on the Droid to come down a little, and for it 
to come to Verizon. For now I'll struggle along with my 3 year old cell 
phone and Palm TX.

-- 
Rick

"PeterK�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
> Nashton wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
> iphone/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>
>>>
>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>> everyone's phones.
>>
>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>> blocked.
>
> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
> "Porn" like that?

Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is now
allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an additional few
days for the app.


>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>
> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
> Priest "The Steve"

So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your cultist
point of view?



 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:50:07 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>> Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>> iphone/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>
>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store. As long as
>>> apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>
>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>> "Porn" like that?
> 
> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
> now allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
> additional few days for the app.

So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after all, or 
because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer winner?(snip)
-- 
Rick

In article <FPGdnQlygYCq1UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:35:25 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:54:48 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> >  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Rotten Apple wrote:
> >> >> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-
> the-
> >> iphone/
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> > There are more long-standing issues:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay
> >> >> >     a tax
> >> >> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't
> >> >> > be on everyone's phones.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app.
> >> >> As is only right.
> >> > 
> >> > I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> >> > developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> >> > self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> >> > involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
> >> > an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> >> > implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> >> > protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> >> > discover your app.
> >> > 
> >> > These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
> >> > indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
> >> > writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
> >> > down pirate serial numbers.
> >> > 
> >> > Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
> >> > not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
> >> > developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
> >> > writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
> >> > couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
> >> > code.
> >> > 
> >> > [snip]
> >> 
> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> > 
> > Which is both good and bad.  Good, maybe even great, if the app is
> > actually optimized for that particular box.  Bad if it isn't or even
> > maybe it doesn't work well at all on whichever of the few hardware
> > configs of upcoming touchpad coming.
> > 
> > The problem of course, is you have no way of knowing until you actually
> > try the software out.
> > 
> > In theory, I like the open approach better.  But in practical useage,
> > I'll take the more controlled approach because I am assured the software
> > does what it says it does and works just right on the iPad/Touch/iPhone.
> 
> I'm waiting for the price on the Droid to come down a little, and for it 
> to come to Verizon. For now I'll struggle along with my 3 year old cell 
> phone and Palm TX.

I never found that I liked any 'smart phone', still don't.   I have a 
basic phone on a pay-as-you-go deal that does what I want it to, make 
phone calls.

I have a Touch and an iPad.  Now that I'm retired and the iPad is out, 
the Touch has little use for me, so I'll probably peddle it on Ebay or 
Craigslist.

As a glorified Touch, my iPad works great and the size is just right for 
the uses I have for it, minus one use.  In bed, on my side, the iPad is 
a bit big and heavy for one-handed reading.  I have a Nook for that!

-- 
Lloyd

On Apr 25, 9:07=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:

> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>

But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those other means
of distribution are not as efficient?

Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> 
> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>> Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>> iphone/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>
>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>>> blocked.
>>
>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>> "Porn" like that?
> 
> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
> now allowed. 

It is? Last I heard was that "The Steve" asked the guy to reenter the app 
for a new consideration.

And even *if* it were allowed now: It is a striking example why apple now 
has to be considered much worse than MS has ever been

> Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
> additional few days for the app.

No. It was a really bad example of censorship.
You guys seem to adapt rather well to being told what you can't do
 
> 
>>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>>
>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
>> Priest "The Steve"
> 
> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
> cultist point of view?

Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't.
He "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else


Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you are 
truly an idiot
-- 
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

Rick wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:50:07 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>>> iphone/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>>
>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store. As long as
>>>> apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>>
>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>>> "Porn" like that?
>> 
>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
>> now allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
>> additional few days for the app.
> 
> So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after all,
> or because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer winner?(snip)

"The Steve" had so much egg on the face, he needed something to hide his 
blatant dictatorship 

That guy should instead write every day some high profile article why 
apple should be removed from this earth. No private compny should *ever* 
have the right to decide what kind of information its customers can or 
can't access with their paid for gadgets
-- 
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!

Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 6:07 AM:

>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>> discover your app.
>> 
>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
>> shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
>> great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
>> serial numbers.
>> 
>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
>> actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
>> make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
>> app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
>> for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
>> 
>> [snip]
> 
> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...

Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for iPhone
OS.  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Peter K�hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:

> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
>>> Priest "The Steve"
>> 
>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>> cultist point of view?
>
> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't.
> He "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>
> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you are 
> truly an idiot

I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over what
we choose to post is idiotic.

-- 
Your society will be sought by people of taste and refinement.

"PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:hr1hpf$4q1$02$2@news.t-online.com...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>>> iphone/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>>
>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>>>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>>>> blocked.
>>>
>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>>> "Porn" like that?
>>
>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
>> now allowed.
>
> It is? Last I heard was that "The Steve" asked the guy to reenter the app
> for a new consideration.

What "you heard" is irrelevant.



> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you are
> truly an idiot

When it comes to idiots - you are the king. Tell us again about screen 
anti-aliasing. Tell us again how everyone is clueless and stupid because 
it's completely legal to dereference a NULL pointer.  Tell me again how QT 
will magically run with the OSX theme on Linux or how Finale doesn't do 
music composition. There are very few people here in COLA that are as stupid 
as you Kohltard. Your posting history makes this abundantly clear.

And I'm sure you have evidence that I'm "Scott Nudds" or that Hadron is 
"Larry"  -  right?




 

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Peter K�hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
>>>> Priest "The Steve"
>>>
>>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>>> cultist point of view?
>>
>> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't.
>> He "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>>
>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you 
>> are
>> truly an idiot
>
> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over 
> what
> we choose to post is idiotic.

Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step and 
all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de 
Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc. And when Jesper 
Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in Stockholm it was 
Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not one single advocate 
dared say otherwise.



 

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>
>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
>>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>> discover your app.
>>> 
>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
>>> shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
>>> great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
>>> serial numbers.
>>> 
>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
>>> actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
>>> make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
>>> app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
>>> for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
>>> 
>>> [snip]
>> 
>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>
> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for iPhone
> OS.  

Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
slap in the chops!

"Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> writes:

> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message 
> news:hr1hpf$4q1$02$2@news.t-online.com...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>>>> iphone/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>>>>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>>>>> blocked.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>>>> "Porn" like that?
>>>
>>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
>>> now allowed.
>>
>> It is? Last I heard was that "The Steve" asked the guy to reenter the app
>> for a new consideration.
>
> What "you heard" is irrelevant.
>
>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you are
>> truly an idiot
>
> When it comes to idiots - you are the king. Tell us again about screen 
> anti-aliasing. Tell us again how everyone is clueless and stupid because 
> it's completely legal to dereference a NULL pointer.  Tell me again how QT 
> will magically run with the OSX theme on Linux or how Finale doesn't do 
> music composition. There are very few people here in COLA that are as stupid 
> as you Kohltard. Your posting history makes this abundantly clear.
>
> And I'm sure you have evidence that I'm "Scott Nudds" or that Hadron is 
> "Larry"  -  right?


Well, creepy Chris Ahlstrom is currently shilling those beliefs. OK, its
because he jacks off when Peter gives him a pat but it's still quite
sickening to see.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:

> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>
>>
> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
> smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those other means of
> distribution are not as efficient?

Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app 
store business.... 



-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>
>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>> discover your app.
>>>> 
>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
>>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
>>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
>>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
>>>> code.
>>>> 
>>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>
>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>> iPhone OS.
> 
> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
> slap in the chops!

The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone 
apps.


-- 
Rick

In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >>
> >>
> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
> > smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> > sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those other means of
> > distribution are not as efficient?
> 
> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app 
> store business....

Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always going to 
be a bit of an issue?

-- 
Lloyd

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:03:16 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:50:07 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>>>> iphone/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store. As long as
>>>>> apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>>>> "Porn" like that?
>>> 
>>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
>>> now allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
>>> additional few days for the app.
>> 
>> So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after all,
>> or because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer winner?(snip)
> 
> "The Steve" had so much egg on the face, he needed something to hide his
> blatant dictatorship
> 
> That guy should instead write every day some high profile article why
> apple should be removed from this earth. No private compny should *ever*
> have the right to decide what kind of information its customers can or
> can't access with their paid for gadgets

The concept of actually owning consumer products is fading fast.

-- 
Rick

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>
> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
> apps.

And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past 13 
weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine with this 
bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried about.

 

In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> > 
> >> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
> >> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
> >>
> >>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> >>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> >>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> >>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
> >>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> >>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> >>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> >>>> discover your app.
> >>>> 
> >>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
> >>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
> >>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
> >>>> down pirate serial numbers.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
> >>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
> >>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
> >>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
> >>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
> >>>> code.
> >>>> 
> >>>> [snip]
> >>> 
> >>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >>
> >> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
> >> iPhone OS.
> > 
> > Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
> > slap in the chops!
> 
> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone 
> apps.

A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)

-- 
Lloyd

Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> writes:

> Peter Köhlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
>>>> Priest "The Steve"
>>> 
>>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>>> cultist point of view?
>>
>> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't.
>> He "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>>
>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you are 
>> truly an idiot
>
> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over what
> we choose to post is idiotic.

Of course you agree. You would agree if Peter told you his shit was pink
even though your nose is so buried up his backdoor you can see for
yourself it's not.

As someone who shills Roy's garbage more than most it is quite obvious
you take your lead from your Master Roy. 

Heel Liarmutt! Heel!

<Roy flips Liarmutt another doggy drop>

"Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> writes:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Peter Köhlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
>>>>> Priest "The Steve"
>>>>
>>>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>>>> cultist point of view?
>>>
>>> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't.
>>> He "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>>>
>>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you 
>>> are
>>> truly an idiot
>>
>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over 
>> what
>> we choose to post is idiotic.
>
> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step and 
> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de 
> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc. And when Jesper 
> Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in Stockholm it was 
> Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not one single advocate 
> dared say otherwise.

Least of all closed source Windows developer Chris who called him
(jesper) a fuckhead "as I recall".

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:43:36 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Peter Köhlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your
>>>>> High Priest "The Steve"
>>>>
>>>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>>>> cultist point of view?
>>>
>>> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't. He
>>> "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>>>
>>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you
>>> are
>>> truly an idiot
>>
>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>> what
>> we choose to post is idiotic.
> 
> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step
> and all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel
> de Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc. And when
> Jesper Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in Stockholm
> it was Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not one single
> advocate dared say otherwise.

.... or maybe there is a group of people that share overlapping similar 
views...



-- 
Rick

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>>
>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
>>>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
>>>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
>>>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
>>>>> code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> 
>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>
>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>> iPhone OS.
>> 
>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>> slap in the chops!
>
> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone 
> apps.

You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on
anyone. Come on Rick, grow up and smell the coffee for once in your
life.
 
Go and wipe that egg off your face, sit down, think about it and come
back a better and stronger person.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:03:16 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:50:07 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
>>>>> iphone/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax
>>>>>>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
>>>>>>> on everyone's phones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store. As long as
>>>>>> apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
>>>>> "Porn" like that?
>>>> 
>>>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app is
>>>> now allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
>>>> additional few days for the app.
>>> 
>>> So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after all,
>>> or because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer winner?(snip)
>> 
>> "The Steve" had so much egg on the face, he needed something to hide his
>> blatant dictatorship
>> 
>> That guy should instead write every day some high profile article why
>> apple should be removed from this earth. No private compny should *ever*
>> have the right to decide what kind of information its customers can or
>> can't access with their paid for gadgets
>
> The concept of actually owning consumer products is fading fast.

Say what? Have you been talking bullshit lessons from Jed and Ahlstrom?

Hadron stated in post 531ea7-7vh.ln1@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
7:44 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>> 
>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
>>>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>> discover your app.
>>>> 
>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
>>>> shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
>>>> great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
>>>> serial numbers.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
>>>> actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
>>>> make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
>>>> app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
>>>> for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
>>>> 
>>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> 
>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for iPhone
>> OS.  
> 
> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
> slap in the chops!

Wait... maybe Rick is against Linux repositories, too.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Apr 22, 2:03=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <DZ%zn.135706$ao7.63...@newsfe21.iad>,
> =A0"Rotten Apple" <rot...@pple.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iph...
>
> And the relevance of a review of the iPhone as it was on opening day
> is... ...what?
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -=
-
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
> "It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Uni=
x with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin =
on Mac OS X)
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
> 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not include=
d
> on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

How completely shitty Apple first gen products are. A turd was a
better phone than the 1st gen iPhone.

Rick stated in post FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 7:53 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>> 
>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
>>>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
>>>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
>>>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
>>>>> code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> 
>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>> 
>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>> iPhone OS.
>> 
>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>> slap in the chops!
> 
> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
> apps.

If you *really* thought so you would explain your "advanced" understanding.
But you will not.  Since you show now sign of believing you are right, why
should anyone else?

Face it: not even in your response to this will you try to explain this
"advanced" understanding of yours.  You just will not.  You are very
predictable.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Apr 24, 9:50=A0pm, Nick Ballard <nrball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rotten Apple wrote:
> >http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iph...
>
> There are more long-standing issues:
>
> =A0 =A0 * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a t=
ax
> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
> everyone's phones.
> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management
> (DRM) technology.
> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others=
 to
> track you without your knowledge.
> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorb=
is
> and Theora.
> =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives=
 on
> the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media
> formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.
>
> "This is the phone that has changed phones forever," Mr. Jobs said.
>
> . . .
>
> There is a reason so much emphasis was put on the visual design of the
> iPhone. There is a reason that Apple is so concerned about unsightly
> seams that they won't even let you change the battery in your own phone.
>
> Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is
> manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of
> an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly
> chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position
> Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for
> the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel
> luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

Well said. The Mactards will only be able to LOL or make personal
attacks after reading this one.

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-2AB506.09565325042010@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
7:56 AM:

> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
>>>>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
>>>>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
>>>>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 
>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>> 
>>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>>> iPhone OS.
>>> 
>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>> slap in the chops!
>> 
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
>> apps.
> 
> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)

How many apps does, say, Ubuntu offer in its repositories?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over 
>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>
> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step and 
> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de 
> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.

You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap with
Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.

> And when Jesper Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in
> Stockholm it was Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not
> one single advocate dared say otherwise.
                      ===================

                      <laughter>

You seem to have a very high opinion of Roy.

There are a lot of different reasons why someone might not respond to any
given thread.

-- 
You'll be sorry...

Rick stated in post FPGdnQdygYBzxUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 7:59 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:43:36 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Peter K�hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>>> 
>>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Peter wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your
>>>>>> High Priest "The Steve"
>>>>> 
>>>>> So how is it that your high priest "The Schestowitz" decides your
>>>>> cultist point of view?
>>>> 
>>>> Simple: He doesn't. He never has, and never will. Because he can't. He
>>>> "decides" *his* view. Not mine, or that of anyone else
>>>> 
>>>> Well done, Ezekiel Scott Nudds: Again proved beyond any doubt that you
>>>> are
>>>> truly an idiot
>>> 
>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>>> what
>>> we choose to post is idiotic.
>> 
>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step
>> and all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel
>> de Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc. And when
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in Stockholm
>> it was Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not one single
>> advocate dared say otherwise.
> 
> ... or maybe there is a group of people that share overlapping similar
> views...

You clearly hold many of your views based on herd mentality... if you did
not, you would be able to defend and explain your comments.  You cannot.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post FPGdnQRygYCJxUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 7:56 AM:

>>> So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after all,
>>> or because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer winner?(snip)
>> 
>> "The Steve" had so much egg on the face, he needed something to hide his
>> blatant dictatorship
>> 
>> That guy should instead write every day some high profile article why
>> apple should be removed from this earth. No private compny should *ever*
>> have the right to decide what kind of information its customers can or
>> can't access with their paid for gadgets
> 
> The concept of actually owning consumer products is fading fast.

Some us still have that concept!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <C7F9A946.6E0AC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> lloydparsons-2AB506.09565325042010@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
> 7:56 AM:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> >>> 
> >>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
> >>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> >>>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> >>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> >>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
> >>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> >>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> >>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> >>>>>> discover your app.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
> >>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
> >>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
> >>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's
> >>>>>> not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
> >>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer who
> >>>>>> writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a
> >>>>>> couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with source
> >>>>>> code.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
> >>>> iPhone OS.
> >>> 
> >>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
> >>> slap in the chops!
> >> 
> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
> >> apps.
> > 
> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
> 
> How many apps does, say, Ubuntu offer in its repositories?

I dunno, but it doesn't have one for Netflix...  :)

-- 
Lloyd

Rick stated in post FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 7:51 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 25, 9:07�am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>> 
>>> 
>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
>> smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
>> sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those other means of
>> distribution are not as efficient?
> 
> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app
> store business....

Good to see you acknowledge Apple is ahead with its distribution system.
The very one you put down.

LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>> 
>> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> >>
>> >>
>> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an
>> > even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all
>> > mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those
>> > other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>> 
>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app
>> store business....
> 
> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always going to
> be a bit of an issue?

Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway 
chasing closed source Windows, right?

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>> iPhone apps.
> 
> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
> 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine with
> this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried about.

And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just because 
people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.

I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or similar 
device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one and use it 
instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my netbook.

-- 
Rick

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
news:hr1m03$8db$9@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>
>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step 
>> and
>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de
>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.
>
> You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap 
> with
> Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
> nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.

"trolling and nonsense"  just like "Larry" Hadron spout. Clearly you see the 
irony in this statement.

And this "Larry Hadron" is a perfect example of the herd mentality that 
prevails here in COLA.  Some moron makes some random and unsubstantiated 
claim and everyone else blindly follows along.



>> And when Jesper Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in
>> Stockholm it was Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not
>> one single advocate dared say otherwise.
>                      ===================
>
>                      <laughter>
>
> You seem to have a very high opinion of Roy.

Certainly not.  It's that I have a low opinion when it comes to COLA 
behavior.

 

Hadron stated in post m72ea7-7vh.ln1@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
8:03 AM:

>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>> 
>>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>>> iPhone OS.
>>> 
>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>> slap in the chops!
>> 
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
>> apps.
> 
> You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
> written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on
> anyone. Come on Rick, grow up and smell the coffee for once in your
> life.
>  
> Go and wipe that egg off your face, sit down, think about it and come
> back a better and stronger person.

Well, there are handful of apps that users do not have access to... unless
they go outside of what is officially provided.  On desktop Linux, though,
users do not have access to some of the *biggies* of the home computing
software industry: Adobe's Creative Suite, MS Office, iLife, etc.

Rick, though, has a double standard - he does not acknowledge the weakness
this is on desktop Linux... but whines about it on iPhone OS.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> > 
>> >> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com
>> >> on 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>> >>
>> >>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf
>> >>>> of developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>> >>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>> >>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for
>> >>>> is an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the
>> >>>> trouble of implementing billing, fulfillment, installation,
>> >>>> updating, and copy protection. Plus the App Store makes it much
>> >>>> easier for people to discover your app.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>> >>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>> >>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>> >>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates,
>> >>>> it's not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>> >>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer
>> >>>> who writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to
>> >>>> charge a couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free
>> >>>> with source code.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> [snip]
>> >>> 
>> >>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>> >>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>> >> iPhone OS.
>> > 
>> > Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got
>> > another slap in the chops!
>> 
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>> iPhone apps.
> 
> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)

Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The 
bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.


-- 
Rick

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-6CD01C.10120325042010@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
8:12 AM:

>>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>>>> slap in the chops!
>>>> 
>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
>>>> apps.
>>> 
>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>> 
>> How many apps does, say, Ubuntu offer in its repositories?
> 
> I dunno, but it doesn't have one for Netflix...  :)

Rick simply ignores the many, many apps that are not available for desktop
Linux... while focusing on the handful of apps not available for iPhone OS.

A clear double standard on his part.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:04:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:03:16 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:50:07 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "PeterKöhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hr1gl7$ffu$03$2@news.t-online.com...
>>>>>> Nashton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-
the-
>>>>>> iphone/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a
>>>>>>>> tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and
>>>>>>>> can't be on everyone's phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store. As long
>>>>>>> as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer
>>>>>> price? "Porn" like that?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which was then changed/corrected a couple of days later and the app
>>>>> is now allowed. Gee... that was such a hardship, having to wait an
>>>>> additional few days for the app.
>>>> 
>>>> So, was the app restored because it wasn't so objectionable after
>>>> all, or because Apple got bad press from denying the Pulitzer
>>>> winner?(snip)
>>> 
>>> "The Steve" had so much egg on the face, he needed something to hide
>>> his blatant dictatorship
>>> 
>>> That guy should instead write every day some high profile article why
>>> apple should be removed from this earth. No private compny should
>>> *ever* have the right to decide what kind of information its customers
>>> can or can't access with their paid for gadgets
>>
>> The concept of actually owning consumer products is fading fast.
> 
> Say what? 

What?

> Have you been talking bullshit lessons from Jed and Ahlstrom?

What?

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:17 AM:

.... 
>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got
>>>> another slap in the chops!
>>> 
>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>> iPhone apps.
>> 
>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
> 
> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The
> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.

Rick: you miss the point. You are claiming that it is a bottleneck, but you
*also* have acknowledged that Apple's distribution system is ahead of other
smart phone distribution systems: you talked about how others are still
"catching up" to Apple here.

So, sure, there may be *theoretical* better distribution systems... but none
exist.  In other words, the bottle neck you are complaining about is mostly
theoretical.  

But the lack of apps on desktop Linux is clear and obvious: even such things
as the Adobe Creative Suite (and the consumer versions), MS Office, iLife
and other commonly used applications are simply not made for Linux.

But when faced with this lacking on of the desktop Linux ecosystem, you
ignore it and focus on MS.  Completely hypocritical of you.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:54:48 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Rotten Apple wrote:
> >> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
> iphone/
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> > There are more long-standing issues:
> >> >
> >> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a
> >> >     tax
> >> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be
> >> > on everyone's phones.
> >> 
> >> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
> >> is only right.
> > 
> > I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
> > developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
> > self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
> > involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
> > absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
> > implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
> > protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
> > discover your app.
> > 
> > These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
> > shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
> > great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
> > serial numbers.
> > 
> > Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
> > actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
> > make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
> > app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
> > for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
> > 
> > [snip]
> 
> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software 
> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...

Yeah, the mainstream market just doesn't care that much.

You guys see a lot of things, like access to source code, the existence 
of a multi-vendor hardware platform, or the availability of apps from 
multiple sources, as being ends-in-themselves. Most people see these 
things as being merely instrumental... and find that they aren't 
actually all that useful a lot of the time.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Rick stated in post FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:16 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>> iPhone apps.
>> 
>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
>> 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine with
>> this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried about.
> 
> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just because
> people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.

Please name any smart phone that has consumer satisfaction ratings even
close to the iPhone... say within 20%

> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or similar
> device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one and use it
> instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my netbook.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:17:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> lloydparsons-6CD01C.10120325042010@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
> 8:12 AM:
> 
>>>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got
>>>>>> another slap in the chops!
>>>>> 
>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>> 
>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>> 
>>> How many apps does, say, Ubuntu offer in its repositories?
>> 
>> I dunno, but it doesn't have one for Netflix...  :)
> 
> Rick simply ignores the many, many apps that are not available for
> desktop Linux... while focusing on the handful of apps not available for
> iPhone OS.
> 
> A clear double standard on his part.

Another Snit lie.



-- 
Rick

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>> iPhone apps.
>>
>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
>> 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine with
>> this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried about.
>
> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just because
> people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.

Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine with 
this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't mean that 
they have some objection to the app-store.


> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or similar
> device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one and use it
> instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my netbook.

Sounds like the person who is waiting forever for the price of a computers 
to go down some more before they buy one.







 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:03:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf
>>>>>> of developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates,
>>>>>> it's not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer
>>>>>> who writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to
>>>>>> charge a couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with
>>>>>> source code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 
>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>>> iPhone OS.
>>> 
>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>> slap in the chops!
>>
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>> iPhone apps.
> 
> You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
> written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on anyone.
> Come on Rick, grow up and smell the coffee for once in your life.
>  
> Go and wipe that egg off your face, sit down, think about it and come
> back a better and stronger person.

Were is the credible competitor to the iPhone app store?

-- 
Rick

In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an
> >> > even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all
> >> > mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those
> >> > other means of distribution are not as efficient?
> >> 
> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app
> >> store business....
> > 
> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always going to
> > be a bit of an issue?
> 
> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway 
> chasing closed source Windows, right?

Chasing windows?  LOL!!

I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal with.  
They are too busy counting the really new stuff they make, and of 
course, counting all the bucks they are making doing it.

-- 
Lloyd

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> Hadron stated in post 531ea7-7vh.ln1@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
> 7:44 AM:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>> 
>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of
>>>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an
>>>>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small indie
>>>>> shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on writing
>>>>> great software than on processing credit cards and chasing down pirate
>>>>> serial numbers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates, it's not
>>>>> actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for developers to
>>>>> make money selling software, and an indie developer who writes a great
>>>>> app is doing something immoral if he wants to charge a couple of bucks
>>>>> for it instead of giving it away free with source code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snip]
>>>> 
>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>>>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>> 
>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for iPhone
>>> OS.  
>> 
>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>> slap in the chops!
>
> Wait... maybe Rick is against Linux repositories, too.  :)

What with all that free SW from 3rd parties? I guess he must be.

Rick stated in post FPGdnT1ygYBKwEnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:20 AM:

.... 
>>> The concept of actually owning consumer products is fading fast.
>> 
>> Say what? 
> 
> What?
> 
>> Have you been talking bullshit lessons from Jed and Ahlstrom?
> 
> What?

Let me make it more clear to you, Rick: You made a claim:

    The concept of actually owning consumer products is
    fading fast.

Many of us, though, still very much have that concept.  Just because you
might be losing it (and I do not doubt you are), does not mean others are.

But let me give you a chance to explain and defend your comment.  Not that
you will... but your running will just make it that much more clear you have
no idea what you are talking about.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an
>> >> > even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all
>> >> > mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of
>> >> > those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>> >> 
>> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the
>> >> app store business....
>> > 
>> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always going
>> > to be a bit of an issue?
>> 
>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
> 
> Chasing windows?  LOL!!

Exactly.

> 
> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal with.

That would be the rank and file, average computer user?

> They are too busy counting the really new stuff they make, and of
> course, counting all the bucks they are making doing it.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post FPGdnT9ygYAww0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:24 AM:

>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>>> slap in the chops!
>>> 
>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>> iPhone apps.
>> 
>> You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
>> written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on anyone.
>> Come on Rick, grow up and smell the coffee for once in your life.
>>  
>> Go and wipe that egg off your face, sit down, think about it and come
>> back a better and stronger person.
> 
> Were is the credible competitor to the iPhone app store?

There have been many other stores... but, as you make it clear you
understand, none have been as effective.

But yet you whine.  But you do not whine about how many apps are not
available for desktop Linux.

Which shows your bias.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post FPGdnTxygYDjw0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:23 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:17:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
>> lloydparsons-6CD01C.10120325042010@news.eternal-september.org on 4/25/10
>> 8:12 AM:
>> 
>>>>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got
>>>>>>> another slap in the chops!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>>> 
>>>> How many apps does, say, Ubuntu offer in its repositories?
>>> 
>>> I dunno, but it doesn't have one for Netflix...  :)
>> 
>> Rick simply ignores the many, many apps that are not available for
>> desktop Linux... while focusing on the handful of apps not available for
>> iPhone OS.
>> 
>> A clear double standard on his part.
> 
> Another Snit lie.

If you *really* thought so you would explain where my comments are wrong.
But you will not.  Once again I talk about Linux and OSS... and you run,
just making accusations.

Notice how easy it is to show your avoidance of talking about Linux and OSS?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
> >> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an
> >> >> > even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all
> >> >> > mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of
> >> >> > those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the
> >> >> app store business....
> >> > 
> >> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always going
> >> > to be a bit of an issue?
> >> 
> >> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
> >> chasing closed source Windows, right?
> > 
> > Chasing windows?  LOL!!
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > 
> > I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal with.
> 
> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
> 
No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!

-- 
Lloyd

"Ezekiel" <Me@Not-there.com> writes:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message 
> news:hr1m03$8db$9@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hr1jk5$8db$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>>
>>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step 
>>> and
>>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de
>>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.
>>
>> You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap 
>> with
>> Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
>> nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.
>
> "trolling and nonsense"  just like "Larry" Hadron spout. Clearly you see the 
> irony in this statement.
>
> And this "Larry Hadron" is a perfect example of the herd mentality that 
> prevails here in COLA.  Some moron makes some random and unsubstantiated 
> claim and everyone else blindly follows along.

And Creepy can't see it. He is proving the opposite of his claims with
the very statements meant to disprove it! Poor old Creepy. He's really
in above his head.

>
>>> And when Jesper Lund Stocholm posted here before the ODF/OOXML vote in
>>> Stockholm it was Schestowitz that lead the charge attacking him and not
>>> one single advocate dared say otherwise.
>>                      ===================
>>
>>                      <laughter>
>>
>> You seem to have a very high opinion of Roy.
>
> Certainly not.  It's that I have a low opinion when it comes to COLA 
> behavior.

And rightly so. Also remember that Creepy claimed that he was not
interested in and would not read any of Roy's stuff outside of COLA
even if the link proved him to be a lying fraud. Creepy would still
shill and support him here. Disgusting behaviour for a grown man who
claims to developer SW for Windows.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>
>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
>>> 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine
>>> with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried
>>> about.
>>
>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine with
> this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't mean
> that they have some objection to the app-store.

Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?

> 
> 
>> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or
>> similar device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one
>> and use it instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my
>> netbook.
> 
> Sounds like the person who is waiting forever for the price of a
> computers to go down some more before they buy one.

Not really. The TX is only recently getting a little "long in the tooth". 
Yes, I am waiting for the price to come down a little, but that is to 
avoid the required data plan. If there was a Droid type device on 
Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I'd probably renew my 
contract. OR.. if some of the other carriers had as good coverage as 
Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I might go with one of 
them.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>> >> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>> >> >> > an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>> >> >> > all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>> >> >> > of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>> >> >> the app store business....
>> >> > 
>> >> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>> >> > going to be a bit of an issue?
>> >> 
>> >> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>> >> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>> > 
>> > Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>> 
>> Exactly.
>> 
>> 
>> > I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>> > with.
>> 
>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>> 
> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!

If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
then, LinuxPPC.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:25:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post 531ea7-7vh.ln1@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 4/25/10 7:44 AM:
>>
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf
>>>>>> of developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates,
>>>>>> it's not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer
>>>>>> who writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to
>>>>>> charge a couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with
>>>>>> source code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 
>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>> 
>>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>>> iPhone OS.
>>> 
>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>> slap in the chops!
>>
>> Wait... maybe Rick is against Linux repositories, too.  :)
> 
> What with all that free SW from 3rd parties? I guess he must be.

You guess wrong. Not surprising.



-- 
Rick

In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
> >> >> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
> >> >> >> > an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
> >> >> >> > all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
> >> >> >> > of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
> >> >> >> the app store business....
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
> >> >> > going to be a bit of an issue?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
> >> >> chasing closed source Windows, right?
> >> > 
> >> > Chasing windows?  LOL!!
> >> 
> >> Exactly.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
> >> > with.
> >> 
> >> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
> >> 
> > No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
> 
> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
> then, LinuxPPC.

But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you 
know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with 
minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.

Of course, you get a pretty damn good box for that bit higher price, so 
even the bad isn't bad at all.

That said, if I was wanting to do some programming or delve into the 
guts of the OS, apps and hardware, I would probably be on Linux.  But 
those things don't interest me much these days, so OSX does the job 
better for me.

But I do have a netbook with UNR, and HP Touchsmart with W7 and a few 
other boxes around the house...

-- 
Lloyd

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>>
>>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
>>>> 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine
>>>> with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine with
>> this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't mean
>> that they have some objection to the app-store.
>
> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?

What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of people 
who DO use the Apple app store. You just claimed that "there are millions 
that are not fine with it."  so let's see some proof of your claim. Quit the 
stupid word games and backup your claim.  You said "And there are millions 
that are not fine with it."  -  so back up your claim.



>>> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or
>>> similar device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one
>>> and use it instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my
>>> netbook.
>>
>> Sounds like the person who is waiting forever for the price of a
>> computers to go down some more before they buy one.
>
> Not really. The TX is only recently getting a little "long in the tooth".
> Yes, I am waiting for the price to come down a little, but that is to
> avoid the required data plan. If there was a Droid type device on
> Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I'd probably renew my
> contract. OR.. if some of the other carriers had as good coverage as
> Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I might go with one of
> them.

I don't see cell phone data plans being free anytime soon. So if you're 
waiting for Droid prices to come down AND not having to buy a data plan then 
you'll be waiting a long, long, long time.



 

Rick stated in post FPGdnTtygYCi_EnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:35 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:25:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Hadron stated in post 531ea7-7vh.ln1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>> 4/25/10 7:44 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf
>>>>>>> of developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell
>>>>>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's
>>>>>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is
>>>>>>> an absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of
>>>>>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy
>>>>>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to
>>>>>>> discover your app.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> These are all really annoying problems for one-man bands and small
>>>>>>> indie shops, which would, in general, really rather concentrate on
>>>>>>> writing great software than on processing credit cards and chasing
>>>>>>> down pirate serial numbers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Of course from the perspective of some free software advocates,
>>>>>>> it's not actually a good thing that Apple is making it easier for
>>>>>>> developers to make money selling software, and an indie developer
>>>>>>> who writes a great app is doing something immoral if he wants to
>>>>>>> charge a couple of bucks for it instead of giving it away free with
>>>>>>> source code.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Absolutely... Apple does not write even 1% of the apps available for
>>>>> iPhone OS.
>>>> 
>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>>> slap in the chops!
>>> 
>>> Wait... maybe Rick is against Linux repositories, too.  :)
>> 
>> What with all that free SW from 3rd parties? I guess he must be.
> 
> You guess wrong. Not surprising.
> 
> 
So explain yourself so people are not left guessing.

As if you could!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:34 AM:

>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>> with.
>>> 
>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>> 
>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
> 
> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of
> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to,
> then, LinuxPPC.

Apple mourns the loss of you as a customer.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:31 AM:

....
>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>> 
>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine with
>> this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't mean
>> that they have some objection to the app-store.
> 
> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?

Why would they not be fine with it if they have not used it?  Really... you
imply they would not be... but that is just silly.

....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:42:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily
>> >> >> >> >> installable software from a wide range of vendors, besides
>> >> >> >> >> Apple...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market
>> >> >> >> > and an even smaller share of the mobile market in general,
>> >> >> >> > 99,4% of all mobile app sales go through the Apple store. 
>> >> >> >> > So maybe all of those other means of distribution are not as
>> >> >> >> > efficient?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up
>> >> >> >> in the app store business....
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>> >> >> > going to be a bit of an issue?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is
>> >> >> alway chasing closed source Windows, right?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>> >> 
>> >> Exactly.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>> >> > with.
>> >> 
>> >> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>> >> 
>> > No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>> 
>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of
>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to,
>> then, LinuxPPC.
> 
> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The

Possibly.

> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.

They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide 
"free" suport with installation on non-Apple hardware.

> 
> Of course, you get a pretty damn good box for that bit higher price, so
> even the bad isn't bad at all.

I have a pretty good box right now.

> 
> That said, if I was wanting to do some programming or delve into the
> guts of the OS, apps and hardware, I would probably be on Linux.  But
> those things don't interest me much these days, so OSX does the job
> better for me.

And I don't have a problem with that. Apple computers did the job better 
for me, too, until I started using Linux systems.

> 
> But I do have a netbook with UNR, and HP Touchsmart with W7 and a few
> other boxes around the house...

I do like Ubuntu Remix :-)

-- 
Rick

On Apr 25, 10:51=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 9:07=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>
> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
> > smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> > sales go through the Apple store. =A0So maybe all of those other means =
of
> > distribution are not as efficient?
>
> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in the app
> store business....
>
> --
> Rick

So the app store came out in 2008.  How long have Windows Mobile
phones and BlackBerry's been available?  Not to mention dumb phones
capable of running J2ME apps.

Rick stated in post FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 8:26 AM:

>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal with.
> 
> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?

As you have been told repeatedly, almost all Macs are in the $1000 range.
This is not the norm for the home computing industry.  Apple is not chasing
every customer.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:45:52 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the
>>>>> past 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just
>>>>> fine with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so
>>>>> worried about.
>>>>
>>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine
>>> with this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't
>>> mean that they have some objection to the app-store.
>>
>> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?
> 
> What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of
> people who DO use the Apple app store.

There are billions that don't.

> You just claimed that "there are
> millions that are not fine with it." 

As there are.

> so let's see some proof of your
> claim. Quit the stupid word games and backup your claim.  You said "And
> there are millions that are not fine with it."  -  so back up your
> claim.

Fine. How can you  be fine with a product if you don't use it?

 
>>>> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or
>>>> similar device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one
>>>> and use it instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases,
>>>> my netbook.
>>>
>>> Sounds like the person who is waiting forever for the price of a
>>> computers to go down some more before they buy one.
>>
>> Not really. The TX is only recently getting a little "long in the
>> tooth". Yes, I am waiting for the price to come down a little, but that
>> is to avoid the required data plan. If there was a Droid type device on
>> Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I'd probably renew my
>> contract. OR.. if some of the other carriers had as good coverage as
>> Verizon, AND I didn't have to buy a data plan, I might go with one of
>> them.
> 
> I don't see cell phone data plans being free anytime soon. So if you're
> waiting for Droid prices to come down AND not having to buy a data plan
> then you'll be waiting a long, long, long time.

That depends on how long it takes to get Droid-ish phones down to my 
price level. If I don't renew my plan, only changing phones, I highly 
doubt I'll have to purchase a data plan.

-- 
Rick

On Apr 25, 11:16=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> > "Rick" <n...@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
> >> iPhone apps.
>
> > And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the past
> > 13 weeks. =A0All of these millions of people seem to get by just fine w=
ith
> > this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so worried about.
>
> And then there are millions that are not fine with it

I'm sure Apple wishes it could capture the 0.6% of the mobile app
market that it doesn't already have.....

>And, just because
> people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.


>
> I'm not worried about it. As I said, when prices on the Droid, or similar
> device, come down, and I can use it on Verizon, I'll get one and use it
> instead of my Palm TX and cell phone, and, in some cases, my netbook.
>

You mean the phone based on the mobile OS that does not allow you to
install apps on external storage?  You have to install all apps on the
limited internal memory.  That's Google's form of DRM.

Rick stated in post FPGdnTVygYDZ8UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 9:22 AM:

>>> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?
>> 
>> What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of
>> people who DO use the Apple app store.
> 
> There are billions that don't.
> 
>> You just claimed that "there are
>> millions that are not fine with it."
> 
> As there are.

Please show support for this.

As if!

>> so let's see some proof of your
>> claim. Quit the stupid word games and backup your claim.  You said "And
>> there are millions that are not fine with it."  -  so back up your
>> claim.
> 
> Fine. How can you  be fine with a product if you don't use it?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:FPGdnTVygYDZ8UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:45:52 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the
>>>>>> past 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by just
>>>>>> fine with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so
>>>>>> worried about.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine
>>>> with this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone doesn't
>>>> mean that they have some objection to the app-store.
>>>
>>> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?
>>
>> What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of
>> people who DO use the Apple app store.
>
> There are billions that don't.
>
>> You just claimed that "there are
>> millions that are not fine with it."
>
> As there are.

Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some anonymous 
usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means nothing. Show some sort 
of evidence that shows that there is a meaningful number of people out there 
("millions") that are not happy with the app store.

Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.



 

Rick stated in post FPGdnTpygYAG9knWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 9:19 AM:

>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of
>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to,
>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>> 
>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The
> 
> Possibly.
> 
>> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
>> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
>> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.
> 
> They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide
> "free" suport with installation on non-Apple hardware.

They do not support it *at all*.  Not just not for free.

>> Of course, you get a pretty damn good box for that bit higher price, so
>> even the bad isn't bad at all.
> 
> I have a pretty good box right now.
> 
>> 
>> That said, if I was wanting to do some programming or delve into the
>> guts of the OS, apps and hardware, I would probably be on Linux.  But
>> those things don't interest me much these days, so OSX does the job
>> better for me.
> 
> And I don't have a problem with that. Apple computers did the job better
> for me, too, until I started using Linux systems.

Curious: what does Linux do better for you?

>> But I do have a netbook with UNR, and HP Touchsmart with W7 and a few
>> other boxes around the house...
> 
> I do like Ubuntu Remix :-)



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 4/25/10 10:38 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Nashton wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-
> iphone/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>
>>>
>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>> everyone's phones.
>>
>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are
>> blocked.
>
> You mean like those from the guy who was awarded the Pulitzer price?
> "Porn" like that?

I don't know what you're talking about.

>
>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>
> You cargo cultists seem to easily get used to be censored by your High
> Priest "The Steve"

It was my choice to buy the iPod touch and iPhone. Frankly, I don't' 
give a rat's ass what you or anyone else thinks.


>
>

In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
 Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:
>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> everyone's phones.

There's plenty of GPL software on the App Store.

>      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
> (DRM) technology.

So does Android.


>      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
> track you without your knowledge.

No more than any other phone. It's inherent in cell phones that you can 
be tracked by the phone company. If you mean by random apps you install, 
you get a modal dialog when they try to use location services that asks 
if you want to give them permission.

>      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
> and Theora.

WAV and AIFF, both patent-free and DRM-free.

.... 
> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g

Ahh...that explains why there are so many errors in that list.


-- 
--Tim Smith

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:27:03 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post FPGdnTpygYAG9knWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/25/10 9:19 AM:
> 
>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece
>>>> of shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving
>>>> to, then, LinuxPPC.
>>> 
>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The
>> 
>> Possibly.
>> 
>>> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
>>> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
>>> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.
>> 
>> They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide
>> "free" suport with installation on non-Apple hardware.
> 
> They do not support it *at all*.  Not just not for free.

No duh. As I said, IF they had allowed running OS X on non-Apple boxes, I 
Mioght still be running OS X.

> 
>>> Of course, you get a pretty damn good box for that bit higher price,
>>> so even the bad isn't bad at all.
>> 
>> I have a pretty good box right now.
>> 
>> 
>>> That said, if I was wanting to do some programming or delve into the
>>> guts of the OS, apps and hardware, I would probably be on Linux.  But
>>> those things don't interest me much these days, so OSX does the job
>>> better for me.
>> 
>> And I don't have a problem with that. Apple computers did the job
>> better for me, too, until I started using Linux systems.
> 
> Curious: what does Linux do better for you?

At the time, LinuxPPC supported all of the hardware I was using. OS X did 
not.

> 
>>> But I do have a netbook with UNR, and HP Touchsmart with W7 and a few
>>> other boxes around the house...
>> 
>> I do like Ubuntu Remix :-)

-- 
Rick

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
>  Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
>> everyone's phones.
>
> There's plenty of GPL software on the App Store.
>
>>      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
>> (DRM) technology.
>
> So does Android.
>
>>      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
>> track you without your knowledge.
>
> No more than any other phone. It's inherent in cell phones that you can 
> be tracked by the phone company. If you mean by random apps you install, 
> you get a modal dialog when they try to use location services that asks 
> if you want to give them permission.
>
>>      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
>> and Theora.
>
> WAV and AIFF, both patent-free and DRM-free.
>
> ... 
>> http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
>
> Ahh...that explains why there are so many errors in that list.

Almost painful to watch another "advocate" lie compilation get dissected
and heaved back into the stifling miasma from which it was gathered.

"Advocates" : TRY to be honest. And Nick - making things up, being
ignorant and telling lies is no way to go through life son. There are
far too many people who like the facts and the truth and who simply
won't let the likes of you, Rexx and Ahlstrom go about gaily telling
porkies to try and impress the other "advocates".

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FPGdnTVygYDZ8UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:45:52 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck
>>>>>>>> on iPhone apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the
>>>>>>> past 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by
>>>>>>> just fine with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so
>>>>>>> worried about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>>>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine
>>>>> with this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone
>>>>> doesn't mean that they have some objection to the app-store.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?
>>>
>>> What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of
>>> people who DO use the Apple app store.
>>
>> There are billions that don't.
>>
>>> You just claimed that "there are
>>> millions that are not fine with it."
>>
>> As there are.
> 
> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means nothing.
> Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a meaningful number
> of people out there ("millions") that are not happy with the app store.
> 
> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.

AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists, 
much less use?

-- 
Rick

In article <reply_in_group-CC33B4.11242225042010@news.supernews.com>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
>  Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> > everyone's phones.
> 
> There's plenty of GPL software on the App Store.
> 
> >      * iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management 
> > (DRM) technology.
> 
> So does Android.
> 
> 
> >      * iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to 
> > track you without your knowledge.
> 
> No more than any other phone. It's inherent in cell phones that you can 
> be tracked by the phone company. If you mean by random apps you install, 
> you get a modal dialog when they try to use location services that asks 
> if you want to give them permission.

Even Apple apps need permission. And there's an option in the Settings 
app to turn off location services on a system-wide basis as well.

> >      * iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis 
> > and Theora.
> 
> WAV and AIFF, both patent-free and DRM-free.
> 
> ... 
> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/5-reasons-to-avoid-iphone-3g
> 
> Ahh...that explains why there are so many errors in that list.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means nothing.
>> Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a meaningful number
>> of people out there ("millions") that are not happy with the app store.
>>
>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>
> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
> much less use?

Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are millions 
that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of substance to backup 
your claim. Exactly as I expected.

Done with your childish word games. Next you'll be telling people how Hans 
Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw someone else 
putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.


 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not happy
>>> with the app store.
>>>
>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>
>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>> much less use?
> 
> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.

Translation: you cannot understand plain English.

Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with something" 
and not know anything about it. If they don't know anything about it, how 
can they be fine with it?

> 
> Done with your childish word games.

Learn to read.

> Next you'll be telling people how
> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw someone
> else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.

Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been 
possible.

-- 
Rick

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not happy
>>>> with the app store.
>>>>
>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>
>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>> much less use?
>>
>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>
> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.

Translation - YOU cannot understand plain English. I asked a simple question 
so try answering the question.

--- "And then there are millions that are not fine with it."

Did you say this or not? And if you did not make this claim then who did?

If you are the one who wrote this then back it up. Simple English... you 
made a claim, back it up. Show something to support what you wrote.

Simple English - back up your claim.


> Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with something"
> and not know anything about it. If they don't know anything about it, how
> can they be fine with it?
>
>>
>> Done with your childish word games.
>
> Learn to read.


If that's the way you write - (someone can be "not fine with something" and 
not know....) then it's no wonder people can't figure out what you're trying 
to say. Try English sometime. It's remarkable how many people can't figure 
out what you're trying to say.

So does asking this remarkably poorly worded question somehow backup your 
claim?


>> Next you'll be telling people how
>> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw someone
>> else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.
>
> Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been
> possible.

Only "possible" in the mind of a complete idiot. Any normal man, women or 
child would laugh at the stupidity of such a ridiculous claim.



 

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:53:21 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>>
>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>>> much less use?
>>>
>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>>
>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
> 
> Translation - YOU cannot understand plain English. I asked a simple
> question so try answering the question.
> 
> --- "And then there are millions that are not fine with it."
> 
> Did you say this or not? And if you did not make this claim then who
> did?
> 
> If you are the one who wrote this then back it up. Simple English... you
> made a claim, back it up. Show something to support what you wrote. 
(snip)

An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke, 
can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?

-- 
Rick

"Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:k9qdnYW2_4M9MUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vkzAAAA@supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:53:21 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>>>
>>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>>>> much less use?
>>>>
>>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>>>
>>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
>>
>> Translation - YOU cannot understand plain English. I asked a simple
>> question so try answering the question.
>>
>> --- "And then there are millions that are not fine with it."
>>
>> Did you say this or not? And if you did not make this claim then who
>> did?
>>
>> If you are the one who wrote this then back it up. Simple English... you
>> made a claim, back it up. Show something to support what you wrote.
> (snip)
>
> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke,
> can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?

Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The only 
way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is to use 
some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like the iPhone 
store? Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life on Nebulon-12, 
they don't know about the app store either.

Non-morons would implicitly assume that the "people" we're talking about 
here are actual people who are relevant to the subject being discussed. Not 
some asinine ridiculous example of people who live in grass huts in the 
jungle.

Obviously I was expecting too much from you.




 

Rick stated in post FPGdnTRygYAsF0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 11:32 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:27:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post FPGdnTpygYAG9knWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/25/10 9:19 AM:
>> 
>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece
>>>>> of shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving
>>>>> to, then, LinuxPPC.
>>>> 
>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The
>>> 
>>> Possibly.
>>> 
>>>> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
>>>> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
>>>> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.
>>> 
>>> They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide
>>> "free" suport with installation on non-Apple hardware.
>> 
>> They do not support it *at all*.  Not just not for free.
> 
> No duh. As I said, IF they had allowed running OS X on non-Apple boxes, I
> Mioght still be running OS X.

Ah, so it was not the OS that made you move.  OK.
....



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 12:50 PM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not happy
>>>> with the app store.
>>>> 
>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>> 
>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>> much less use?
>> 
>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
> 
> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.

This is disingenious of you.  You made a claim and you have *no* support.

> Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with something"
> and not know anything about it. If they don't know anything about it, how
> can they be fine with it?

Are you bothered by the fishing habits of people, in general, at Watson
Lake?  I suspect you know nothing of such habits... you have *zero* issues
with people's behavior there... at least with your current level of
ignorance you are just fine with their behavior; it does not bother you for
a single second.  

Why would you be bothered with it at all?
 
>> Done with your childish word games.
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
>> Next you'll be telling people how
>> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw someone
>> else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.
> 
> Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been
> possible.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 11:34 AM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:FPGdnTVygYDZ8UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:45:52 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:FPGdnTlygYDX_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:24:19 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:FPGdnQBygYAlwUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:56:35 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck
>>>>>>>>> on iPhone apps.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And so do the 8.75 million people who bought an iPhone during the
>>>>>>>> past 13 weeks.  All of these millions of people seem to get by
>>>>>>>> just fine with this bottleneck that you, 7 and Schestowitz seem so
>>>>>>>> worried about.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And then there are millions that are not fine with it. And, just
>>>>>>> because people put up with it does not mean they are fine with it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you have any evidence that there are millions that are not fine
>>>>>> with this? Hint... just because someone doesn't buy an iPhone
>>>>>> doesn't mean that they have some objection to the app-store.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hint: how can they be fine with it if they haven't used it?
>>>> 
>>>> What on earth are you talking about Rick?  There *are* millions of
>>>> people who DO use the Apple app store.
>>> 
>>> There are billions that don't.
>>> 
>>>> You just claimed that "there are
>>>> millions that are not fine with it."
>>> 
>>> As there are.
>> 
>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means nothing.
>> Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a meaningful number
>> of people out there ("millions") that are not happy with the app store.
>> 
>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
> 
> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
> much less use?

You made a claim.

You are not supporting it.

Do not play games and try to turn things around.  You are only proving my
comments about you correct when you do so.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:04:56 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:k9qdnYW2_4M9MUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vkzAAAA@supernews.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:53:21 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know
>>>>>> exists, much less use?
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
>>>
>>> Translation - YOU cannot understand plain English. I asked a simple
>>> question so try answering the question.
>>>
>>> --- "And then there are millions that are not fine with it."
>>>
>>> Did you say this or not? And if you did not make this claim then who
>>> did?
>>>
>>> If you are the one who wrote this then back it up. Simple English...
>>> you made a claim, back it up. Show something to support what you
>>> wrote.
>> (snip)
>>
>> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke,
>> can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?
> 
> Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The
> only way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is
> to use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
> the iPhone store? 

I didn't say anything about them disliking the iPhone store. That is your 
incorrect inference. I said that person wasn't fine with it.


> Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life
> on Nebulon-12, they don't know about the app store either.

... and they wouldn't be fine with it, either.

> 
> Non-morons would implicitly assume that the "people" we're talking about
> here are actual people who are relevant to the subject being discussed.
> Not some asinine ridiculous example of people who live in grass huts in
> the jungle.
> 
> Obviously I was expecting too much from you.

I told you it was an extreme example. The fact is, there may be billions 
that are fine with the iPhone store, but there are probably billions that 
aren't. And, AGAIN, I'm not saying they dislike it. Since, again, how 
could they dislike it if they aren't familiar with it?

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:58:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/25/10 12:50 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>> 
>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>>> much less use?
>>> 
>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>> 
>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
> 
> This is disingenious of you.  You made a claim and you have *no*
> support.

I do. You refuse to acknowledge it.

> 
>> Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with something"
>> and not know anything about it. If they don't know anything about it,
>> how can they be fine with it?
> 
> Are you bothered by the fishing habits of people, in general, at Watson
> Lake?  

Since I have no knowledge of their fishing habits, how can I be bothered 
by them?

> I suspect you know nothing of such habits... you have *zero*
> issues with people's behavior there... at least with your current level
> of ignorance you are just fine with their behavior; it does not bother
> you for a single second.

No, I am not just fine with their behavior. Since I have no knowledge of 
it, I cannot be just fine with it.

> 
> Why would you be bothered with it at all?

I'm not.

>  
>>> Done with your childish word games.
>> 
>> Learn to read.
>> 
>>> Next you'll be telling people how
>>> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw
>>> someone else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.
>> 
>> Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been
>> possible.


-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 1eqdnZ7B5YajIEnWnZ2dnUVZ_syqKgAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 3:07 PM:

....
>>> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke,
>>> can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?
>> 
>> Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The
>> only way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is
>> to use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
>> the iPhone store?
> 
> I didn't say anything about them disliking the iPhone store. That is your
> incorrect inference. I said that person wasn't fine with it.

And your defense of that is that they know nothing of it... and are somehow
then not "fine" with it... which you have yet to defend.

Nor will you.

You are very, very bad at supporting your claims.

>> Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life
>> on Nebulon-12, they don't know about the app store either.
> 
> .. and they wouldn't be fine with it, either.

Who is not "fine" with the possibility of intelligent life somewhere else?
There are some, sure, but most people have no problem with it whatsoever.

>> Non-morons would implicitly assume that the "people" we're talking about
>> here are actual people who are relevant to the subject being discussed.
>> Not some asinine ridiculous example of people who live in grass huts in
>> the jungle.
>> 
>> Obviously I was expecting too much from you.
> 
> I told you it was an extreme example. The fact is, there may be billions
> that are fine with the iPhone store, but there are probably billions that
> aren't. And, AGAIN, I'm not saying they dislike it. Since, again, how
> could they dislike it if they aren't familiar with it?

Make up your mind: do they dislike it (are not "fine" with it) or are they
ignorant of it (and thus have no opinion one way or the other).

You play word games and flip flop a lot and then whine when people point it
out.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 1eqdnZnB5YZWIEnWnZ2dnUVZ_sw3t52d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 3:10 PM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:58:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/25/10 12:50 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>>> 
>>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know exists,
>>>>> much less use?
>>>> 
>>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>>> 
>>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
>> 
>> This is disingenious of you.  You made a claim and you have *no*
>> support.
> 
> I do. You refuse to acknowledge it.
> 
>> 
>>> Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with something"
>>> and not know anything about it. If they don't know anything about it,
>>> how can they be fine with it?
>> 
>> Are you bothered by the fishing habits of people, in general, at Watson
>> Lake?  
> 
> Since I have no knowledge of their fishing habits, how can I be bothered
> by them?
> 
>> I suspect you know nothing of such habits... you have *zero*
>> issues with people's behavior there... at least with your current level
>> of ignorance you are just fine with their behavior; it does not bother
>> you for a single second.
> 
> No, I am not just fine with their behavior. Since I have no knowledge of
> it, I cannot be just fine with it.
> 
>> 
>> Why would you be bothered with it at all?
> 
> I'm not.
> 
>>  
>>>> Done with your childish word games.
>>> 
>>> Learn to read.
>>> 
>>>> Next you'll be telling people how
>>>> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw
>>>> someone else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been
>>> possible.

Ah, you are making up definitions now.  Whatever.  You are trying to pretend
someone can be both ignorant of something else and also bothered by it (not
"fine" with it), then flip flopping and saying they are not bothered by it
(and thus "fine" with it or maybe just ignorant of it).

And you will not, of course, ever clarify... you are just looking for
attention.  Got it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:40:11 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post FPGdnTRygYAsF0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
> 4/25/10 11:32 AM:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:27:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnTpygYAG9knWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/25/10 9:19 AM:
>>> 
>>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece
>>>>>> of shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving
>>>>>> to, then, LinuxPPC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The
>>>> 
>>>> Possibly.
>>>> 
>>>>> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
>>>>> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
>>>>> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.
>>>> 
>>>> They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide
>>>> "free" support with installation on non-Apple hardware.
>>> 
>>> They do not support it *at all*.  Not just not for free.
>> 
>> No duh. As I said, IF they had allowed running OS X on non-Apple boxes,
>> I Might still be running OS X.
> 
> Ah, so it was not the OS that made you move.  OK. ...

It was a combination of things. At the time I switched, OS X didn't 
support all my peripherals. LinuxPPC did. For a while, I used both OS X 
and LinuxPPC. I even intalled X and gtk on my OSX box and compiled a 
couple of the apps I was running under LinuxPPC to run under  X in OS X. 
By the time OS X got around to supporting the stuff I had, I was using 
Linux systems on a PC. However, had Apple allowed, for lack of a better 
word, OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, I may have not made the 
permanent switch to Linux systems. --May not--.

-- 
Rick

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:21:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 1eqdnZnB5YZWIEnWnZ2dnUVZ_sw3t52d@supernews.com on
> 4/25/10 3:10 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:58:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post k9qdnY62_4NsAUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/25/10 12:50 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:00:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:FPGdnTdygYCtFknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:26:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Prove it. Show something to backup your claim. Just because some
>>>>>>> anonymous usenet poster going by "Rick" makes this claim means
>>>>>>> nothing. Show some sort of evidence that shows that there is a
>>>>>>> meaningful number of people out there ("millions") that are not
>>>>>>> happy with the app store.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or you can continue playing your cowardly word games.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> AGAIN, how can you be fine with something that you don't know
>>>>>> exists, much less use?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translation - You can not back up your claim of "And then there are
>>>>> millions that are not fine with it." at all. Not a single iota of
>>>>> substance to backup your claim. Exactly as I expected.
>>>> 
>>>> Translation: you cannot understand plain English.
>>> 
>>> This is disingenious of you.  You made a claim and you have *no*
>>> support.
>> 
>> I do. You refuse to acknowledge it.
>> 
>> 
>>>> Here's something else for you. Someone can be "not fine with
>>>> something" and not know anything about it. If they don't know
>>>> anything about it, how can they be fine with it?
>>> 
>>> Are you bothered by the fishing habits of people, in general, at
>>> Watson Lake?
>> 
>> Since I have no knowledge of their fishing habits, how can I be
>> bothered by them?
>> 
>>> I suspect you know nothing of such habits... you have *zero* issues
>>> with people's behavior there... at least with your current level of
>>> ignorance you are just fine with their behavior; it does not bother
>>> you for a single second.
>> 
>> No, I am not just fine with their behavior. Since I have no knowledge
>> of it, I cannot be just fine with it.
>> 
>> 
>>> Why would you be bothered with it at all?
>> 
>> I'm not.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Done with your childish word games.
>>>> 
>>>> Learn to read.
>>>> 
>>>>> Next you'll be telling people how
>>>>> Hans Reiser knew where his wife's body was because "maybe he saw
>>>>> someone else putting it there."  -  Oh wait... you already did.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I did say that. And, at the time I said it, it could have been
>>>> possible.
> 
> Ah, you are making up definitions now.  Whatever.  You are trying to
> pretend someone can be both ignorant of something else and also bothered
> by it (not "fine" with it), then flip flopping and saying they are not
> bothered by it (and thus "fine" with it or maybe just ignorant of it).
> 
> And you will not, of course, ever clarify... you are just looking for
> attention.  Got it.

Idiot.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 1eqdnZrB5YZqXEnWnZ2dnUVZ_syqKgAA@supernews.com on
4/25/10 3:28 PM:

>> Ah, you are making up definitions now.  Whatever.  You are trying to
>> pretend someone can be both ignorant of something else and also bothered
>> by it (not "fine" with it), then flip flopping and saying they are not
>> bothered by it (and thus "fine" with it or maybe just ignorant of it).
>> 
>> And you will not, of course, ever clarify... you are just looking for
>> attention.  Got it.
> 
> Idiot.


See how you just lash out and do not even pretend to have a point.  There
are three ways people can see something (well, to keep things simple for
you):

* They can be have no problems with something (be fine with it)
* They can be ignorant of it
* The can have some problem with it (not be fine with it)

You are acting like the last two are the same.  It is a silly game you are
playing... I have called you on it, and you can only call me names in
reaction.

Oh well... another of your little circuses blows up in your face.  Not like
it is the first time.  Nor the last.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 1eqdnZvB5YYbXEnWnZ2dnUVZ_sw3t52d@supernews.com on
4/25/10 3:26 PM:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:40:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post FPGdnTRygYAsF0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 4/25/10 11:32 AM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:27:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnTpygYAG9knWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/25/10 9:19 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece
>>>>>>> of shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving
>>>>>>> to, then, LinuxPPC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The
>>>>> 
>>>>> Possibly.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> controlled hardware environment has both good and bad about it, you
>>>>>> know.  The good is that things work like they are supposed to with
>>>>>> minimal issues, the bad is that the prices tend higher.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They could have just put a disclaimer on the box they didn't provide
>>>>> "free" support with installation on non-Apple hardware.
>>>> 
>>>> They do not support it *at all*.  Not just not for free.
>>> 
>>> No duh. As I said, IF they had allowed running OS X on non-Apple boxes,
>>> I Might still be running OS X.
>> 
>> Ah, so it was not the OS that made you move.  OK. ...
> 
> It was a combination of things. At the time I switched, OS X didn't
> support all my peripherals. LinuxPPC did. For a while, I used both OS X
> and LinuxPPC. I even intalled X and gtk on my OSX box and compiled a
> couple of the apps I was running under LinuxPPC to run under  X in OS X.
> By the time OS X got around to supporting the stuff I had, I was using
> Linux systems on a PC. However, had Apple allowed, for lack of a better
> word, OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, I may have not made the
> permanent switch to Linux systems. --May not--.

Fair enough: it is not something inherent about usability on the systems
they run on but the overall environment.  I completely agree that overall
environments are important.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Søndag 25. april 2010 23.04, Ezekiel wrote:


> 
> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:k9qdnYW2_4M9MUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vkzAAAA@supernews.com...
>> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke,
>> can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?
 
> use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like the

*boggle*

Felis silvestris wrote:

> On Søndag 25. april 2010 23.04, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:k9qdnYW2_4M9MUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vkzAAAA@supernews.com...
>>> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well,
>>> Zeke, can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?
>  
>> use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
>> the
> 
> *boggle*

Oh, he is just an entire continent off. Give him some slack, he is just a 
windows user and apple apologist
-- 
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the
stupidity of your action.

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The only 
> way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is to use 
> some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like the iPhone 
                     ==============  oops
> store? Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life on Nebulon-12, 
> they don't know about the app store either.

-- 
Another good night not to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.

Peter K�hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:

> Felis silvestris wrote:
>
>> On S�ndag 25. april 2010 23.04, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> "Rick" <none@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:k9qdnYW2_4M9MUnWnZ2dnUVZ_vkzAAAA@supernews.com...
>>>> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well,
>>>> Zeke, can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?
>>  
>>> use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
>>> the
>> 
>> *boggle*
>
> Oh, he is just an entire continent off. Give him some slack, he is just a 
> windows user and apple apologist

Well, to be fair, according to plate tectonics the two continents were once
adjoined.  :-)

-- 
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:40:05 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The
>> only way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is
>> to use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
>> the iPhone
>                      ==============  oops
>> store? Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life on
>> Nebulon-12, they don't know about the app store either.

.... as I said in the thread, if you don't know about something, you can't 
be just fine with it.



-- 
Rick

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>
>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over 
>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>
>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step and 
>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de 
>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.

Nope.  You are a bald-faced liar, "Ezekiel".

>You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap with
>Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
>nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.

He's not "silly", he's a fscking asshole and a liar.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over 
>>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>>
>>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step and 
>>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de 
>>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.
>
> Nope.  You are a bald-faced liar, "Ezekiel".
>
>>You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap with
>>Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
>>nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.
>
> He's not "silly", he's a fscking asshole and a liar.

Actually he's spot on.

As your reply further demonstrates.

But you're too dumb to realise it.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:633bt5l19bceafup1u7jkgp84dp9j3vvrb@4ax.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>>
>>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step 
>>> and
>>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de
>>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.
>
> Nope.  You are a bald-faced liar, "Ezekiel".

Gee chrisv - you are such a tough-guy hiding behind your little anonymous 
usenet keyboard.


>>You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap 
>>with
>>Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
>>nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.
>
> He's not "silly", he's a fscking asshole and a liar.

Wow - what a man you are. You're able to hide behind your keyboard and call 
people names. Bully for you!

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:633bt5l19bceafup1u7jkgp84dp9j3vvrb@4ax.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> trolling fsckwit wrote:
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree that claiming Roy has even a scintilla of influence over
>>>> what we choose to post is idiotic.
>>>
>>> Then it must be one BIG coincidence that COLA advocates are in lock-step 
>>> and
>>> all just happen to have the exact same view as Schestowitz on Miguel de
>>> Icaza, iPhones, iPods, music and film copyrights, etc, etc.
>
> Nope.  You are a bald-faced liar, "Ezekiel".
>
>>You're being silly.  While some of us may have some views that overlap 
>>with
>>Roy's, to call it "lock-step" is just balderdash, the kind of trolling
>>nonsense that loonies like Larry Hadron spout.
>
> He's not "silly", he's a fscking asshole and a liar.
>

chrisv is a piece of shit. chrisv is a liar.

Rick stated in post JO-dnSOjWK3l6kjWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/26/10 4:22 AM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:40:05 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:
>> 
>>> Is this how poor your grasp of the English language and logic is?  The
>>> only way you can prove the pathetic point that you're trying to make is
>>> to use some native of the African Amazon as a case that they don't like
>>> the iPhone
>>                      ==============  oops
>>> store? Hey... how about the possibility of intelligent life on
>>> Nebulon-12, they don't know about the app store either.
> 
> ... as I said in the thread, if you don't know about something, you can't
> 
> be just fine with it.

As you have been told:

There are three ways people can see something (well, to keep things simple
for you):

* They can be have no problems with something (be fine with it)
* They can be ignorant of it
* The can have some problem with it (not be fine with it)

You are acting like the last two are the same.  It is a silly game you are
playing... I have called you on it, and you can only call me names in
reaction.

Oh well... another of your little circuses blows up in your face.  Not like
it is the first time.  Nor the last.




-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
> >> iPhone apps.
> > 
> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
> 
> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The 
> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.

Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't 
really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application 
availability, which is quite important to regular users.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>> >> iPhone apps.
>> > 
>> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>> 
>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The
>> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
> 
> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't
> really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application
> availability, which is quite important to regular users.

I am talking about a single source for applications.


-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/26/10 2:43 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
>> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>> 
>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>> 
>>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The
>>> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>> 
>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't
>> really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application
>> availability, which is quite important to regular users.
> 
> I am talking about a single source for applications.

Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the only
source. How horrid.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
> >> >> iPhone apps.
> >> > 
> >> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
> >> 
> >> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The
> >> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
> > 
> > Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't
> > really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application
> > availability, which is quite important to regular users.
> 
> I am talking about a single source for applications.

So am I.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:54:09 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 2:43 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>>>>>> iPhone apps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>>> 
>>>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The
>>>> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>>> 
>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't
>>> really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application
>>> availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>> 
>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
> 
> Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the only
> source. How horrid.

Are you really that stupid? Yes, I think you are.

You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only 
source. And why.

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:08:24 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck
>> >> >> on iPhone apps.
>> >> > 
>> >> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>> >> 
>> >> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it.
>> >> The bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>> > 
>> > Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>> > isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>> > application availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>> 
>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
> 
> So am I.

.... and it's a bottleneck.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnb9PBOtDk0vWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/26/10 3:08 PM:

....
>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't
>>>> really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application
>>>> availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>>> 
>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>> 
>> Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the only
>> source. How horrid.
> 
> Are you really that stupid? Yes, I think you are.
> 
> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only
> source. And why.

You have no idea why most desktop Linux users will only use the provided
repositories.  OK.  I accept your ignorance on that.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  Nick Ballard <nrball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for othe=
rs to
> > track you without your knowledge.
>
> Got news for you -- every cell phone tracks your whereabouts and
> provides ways for others to track you. =A0What in particular are you
> talking about?

Perhaps how it is US Federal Law that requires this, enforced via FCC.


> > =A0 =A0 =A0* iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternativ=
es on
> > the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free medi=
a
> > formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.
>
> http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Neo_FreeRunner
>
> "The software available on the phone makes it suitable for power users
> and developers only -- it is not yet ready for the general consumer."
>
> "With most distributions the FreeRunner is working as a reliable
> phone. However it still has usability issues and many advanced
> features are still missing."
> ...
>
> So should we all rush out and get a phone that "is not yet ready for
> the general consumer"?

It all depends on how much "leet" points one needs in order to build
up one's miserably low self esteem.



-hh

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:27 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdnb9PBOtDk0vWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 3:08 PM:
> 
> ...
>>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>>>>> isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>>>>> application availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>>>> 
>>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>>> 
>>> Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the
>>> only source. How horrid.
>> 
>> Are you really that stupid? Yes, I think you are.
>> 
>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>> only source. And why.
> 
> You have no idea why most desktop Linux users will only use the provided
> repositories.  OK.  I accept your ignorance on that.

You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only 
source. And why.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnb5PBOuxkkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
4/26/10 3:09 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:08:24 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
>> In article <4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck
>>>>>>> on iPhone apps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it.
>>>>> The bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>>>> 
>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>>>> isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>>>> application availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>>> 
>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>> 
>> So am I.
> 
> ... and it's a bottleneck.
> 
> 
> 
So for most users, in your view, Linux repositories are a bottleneck.  OK.

Wait... you are going to flip flop.  Completely predictable.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:33:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdnb5PBOuxkkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 3:09 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:08:24 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <4OCdnYZPBOuVlEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:13:10 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck
>>>>>>>> on iPhone apps.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it.
>>>>>> The bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>>>>> isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>>>>> application availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>>>> 
>>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>>> 
>>> So am I.
>> 
>> ... and it's a bottleneck.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> So for most users, in your view, Linux repositories are a bottleneck. 

If you meant athat as a statement, it is a lie.
OK

If you meant it as a question, no.
OK.

> OK.
> 
> Wait... you are going to flip flop.  Completely predictable.

Wait, are you going to develop a third brain cell? Completely predictable.

-- 
Rick

In article 
<94eb775c-6af6-4106-8953-a05ca45f9398@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  Nick Ballard <nrball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > � � �* iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to
> > > track you without your knowledge.
> >
> > Got news for you -- every cell phone tracks your whereabouts and
> > provides ways for others to track you. �What in particular are you
> > talking about?
> 
> Perhaps how it is US Federal Law that requires this, enforced via FCC.

The network needs to know your approximate location so it can know what 
tower to route calls through. E911 regulations also require a phone to 
continuously transmit as precise a location as it can if the user dials 
911. (Including after the user hangs up.) Most phones will show some 
clear indication when they're in this mode.

In general this seems like a Good Idea.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>  Ezekiel wrote:
> >
>
> > If you are the one who wrote this then back it up. Simple English... you
> > made a claim, back it up. Show something to support what you wrote.
>
> (snip)
>
> An extreme example: Oh, look, an native of the deep Amazon. well, Zeke,
> can you tell us, is he fine with the iPhone store?

Logically, he is an ignorant, so he has no position either way; an
indeterminate datapoint.

To claim that he has a negative position requires the use of F = (1-T)
logic but while knowingly misapplying a known incomplete (non-binary)
data set, means that the approach is not only technically wrong, but
is also  intellectually dishonest.

Please try again.

-hh

Rick stated in post 4OCdnbdPBOu9jkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/26/10 3:26 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:27 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 4OCdnb9PBOtDk0vWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/26/10 3:08 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>>>>>> isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>>>>>> application availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the
>>>> only source. How horrid.
>>> 
>>> Are you really that stupid? Yes, I think you are.
>>> 
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>> 
>> You have no idea why most desktop Linux users will only use the provided
>> repositories.  OK.  I accept your ignorance on that.
> 
> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only
> source. And why.

You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:46:11 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdnbdPBOu9jkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 3:26 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:17:27 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdnb9PBOtDk0vWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/26/10 3:08 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that
>>>>>>> isn't really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about
>>>>>>> application availability, which is quite important to regular
>>>>>>> users.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am talking about a single source for applications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ah, yes... for many users the standard distro repositories are the
>>>>> only source. How horrid.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you really that stupid? Yes, I think you are.
>>>> 
>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>> only source. And why.
>>> 
>>> You have no idea why most desktop Linux users will only use the
>>> provided repositories.  OK.  I accept your ignorance on that.
>> 
>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>> only source. And why.
> 
> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)

You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only 
source. And why.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnbJPBOv1iEvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
4/26/10 3:36 PM:

>>>> So am I.
>>> 
>>> ... and it's a bottleneck.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> So for most users, in your view, Linux repositories are a bottleneck.
> 
> If you meant athat as a statement, it is a lie.
> OK
> 
> If you meant it as a question, no.
> OK.

So when users are mostly tied to a single source it is not a bottleneck. I
accept your admission you were wrong.

Wait.

Oh.

You will flip flop and claim I am trying to talk for you by merely noting
what you said.  Whatever.  Then you will "give" me the last word... your
code for running and burying your head.

>> OK.
>> 
>> Wait... you are going to flip flop.  Completely predictable.
> 
> Wait, are you going to develop a third brain cell? Completely predictable.

See how you just spew insults.  It is your way when you know you have
nothing of value to add.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
4/26/10 3:48 PM:

.... 
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>> 
>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
> 
> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only
> source. And why.

Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users will
not use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.  You
are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations and insults against me
I am not going to spend the time to educate you as to what we both agree you
are ignorant.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
> 
> ...
>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>> only source. And why.
>>> 
>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>> 
>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>> only source. And why.
> 
> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations and
> insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate you as to
> what we both agree you are ignorant.

You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only 
source. And why.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdna5PBOtHvkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
4/26/10 4:38 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>> 
>>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>>> 
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>> 
>> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
>> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations and
>> insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate you as to
>> what we both agree you are ignorant.
> 
> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only
> source. And why.

I appreciate your permission, I guess... but now read and see if you can
understand what I wrote.

My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of value
to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate the fact you
are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not use anything other
than the repositories provided by the distro.

And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdna5PBOtHvkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 4:38 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>> only source. And why.
>>> 
>>> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
>>> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>>> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations and
>>> insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate you as
>>> to what we both agree you are ignorant.
>> 
>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>> only source. And why.
> 
> I appreciate your permission, I guess... but now read and see if you can
> understand what I wrote.
> 
> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
> 
> And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.

You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only 
source. And why.

.... unless, of course, you can't.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnahPBOscqUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
4/26/10 5:49 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna5PBOtHvkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 4/26/10 4:38 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>> 
>>>> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
>>>> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>>>> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations and
>>>> insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate you as
>>>> to what we both agree you are ignorant.
>>> 
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>> 
>> I appreciate your permission, I guess... but now read and see if you can
>> understand what I wrote.
>> 
>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
>> 
>> And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.
> 
> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the only
> source. And why.
> 
> ... unless, of course, you can't.
> 
Ah, now I have to jump through your hoops or, to you, that proves I cannot
do as *you* want.  LOL!  No, Rick... I have no obligation to play your games
to help you obfuscate the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux
users will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
distro.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:58:12 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post 4OCdnahPBOscqUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
> 4/26/10 5:49 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna5PBOtHvkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 4/26/10 4:38 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com
>>>>> on 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were
>>>>>>>> the only source. And why.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
>>>>> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>>>>> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations
>>>>> and insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate
>>>>> you as to what we both agree you are ignorant.
>>>> 
>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>> only source. And why.
>>> 
>>> I appreciate your permission, I guess... but now read and see if you
>>> can understand what I wrote.
>>> 
>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
>>> 
>>> And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.
>> 
>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>> only source. And why.
>> 
>> ... unless, of course, you can't.
>> 
> Ah, now I have to jump through your hoops or, to you, that proves I
> cannot do as *you* want.  LOL!  No, Rick... I have no obligation to play
> your games to help you obfuscate the fact you are ignorant about why
> most desktop Linux users will not use anything other than the
> repositories provided by the distro.

Thanks for admitting you can't document when the standard distro 
repositories were the only source. And why.

Ok.

All done here....

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 4OCdnapPBOtzqkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
4/26/10 6:03 PM:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:58:12 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post 4OCdnahPBOscqUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 4/26/10 5:49 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna5PBOtHvkvWnZ2dnUVZ_hAwAAAA@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/26/10 4:38 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick stated in post 4OCdna9PBOvRhUvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCtnZ2d@supernews.com
>>>>>> on 4/26/10 3:48 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were
>>>>>>>>> the only source. And why.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You just proved me right.  Just thought you should know.  :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let us just agree that you have no clue why most desktop Linux users
>>>>>> will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>>>>>> distro.  You are ignorant of this... and with your BS accusations
>>>>>> and insults against me I am not going to spend the time to educate
>>>>>> you as to what we both agree you are ignorant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>>>> only source. And why.
>>>> 
>>>> I appreciate your permission, I guess... but now read and see if you
>>>> can understand what I wrote.
>>>> 
>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
>>>> 
>>>> And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.
>>> 
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>>> 
>>> ... unless, of course, you can't.
>>> 
>> Ah, now I have to jump through your hoops or, to you, that proves I
>> cannot do as *you* want.  LOL!  No, Rick... I have no obligation to play
>> your games to help you obfuscate the fact you are ignorant about why
>> most desktop Linux users will not use anything other than the
>> repositories provided by the distro.
> 
> Thanks for admitting you can't document when the standard distro
> repositories were the only source. And why.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> All done here....

Ah, you are now just making things up to try to obfuscate the fact you are
ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not use anything other than
the repositories provided by the distro.

I am impressed, though, that you have gone this far without whining and
crying and saying you are going to bury your head in the sand weeping as you
"give me the last word".  LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>> Rick stated:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.

LOL, repeat mode, obfuscate, something Snit does continuously.

35- Hadron (COLA):
Snit: "Now why not end your silliness and either just stop your BS or
actually give reasoned comments on the screen shots you keep asking for
and I keep providing?
Hadron: "err, he just did. And you snipped it all you weasel."  30 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/de49f2b7471d2e1a

Snit: "Sigh: 100% predictable, you will not answer *any* question I just
asked. You will run... your whole goal is to beg for attention, not to
make or support a point."
Hadron: "nice. You made it into my new killfile. Jesus, stop repeating
the same garbage."  6 Apr 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c86ab53a759ea728

Hadron (COLA): "... your constant repetition could send an acid tab to
sleep ... Why not do yourself and the rest of us a favour and kill file
the dickhead?"  09 Dec 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/6533c646468adc42

26- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in
my post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit."  16 Nov 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55214ccfb7414fe5

40- Homer (COLA):
HPT: "Snit in a period of 2 minutes has copied a post of mine, posting
the same following message over and over, in false pretense as a Linux
advocate."
Homer: "That kind of behaviour is not normal, to say the least.  I don't
mean this as a personal insult, but I'm perfectly serious when I say
'Snit' (Michael Glasser) is obviously mentally ill, and needs help.  I
was going to suggest that someone alerts his wife to the problem, but I
have to assume she's already aware of his condition, if she is in fact
still living with him. It's possible, I suppose, that he's already
undergoing counselling and/or on medication, but if he is then it doesn't
seem to be helping much. Maybe he just missed his 'meds' today (again, I
mean that sincerely).  26 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e061874ea94e9ce8

>>>> And, face it, you have *no* idea.  You are clueless.
>>>
>>> You may now document when the standard distro repositories were the
>>> only source. And why.
>>> ... unless, of course, you can't.
>>>
>> Ah, now I have to jump through your hoops or, to you, that proves I
>> cannot do as *you* want.  LOL!  No, Rick... I have no obligation to play
>> your games to help you obfuscate the fact you are ignorant about why
>> most desktop Linux users will not use anything other than the
>> repositories provided by the distro.

17- CozmicDebris: "I'm done with your three year old games. The archives
show my answers and your inability to process them. Keep posting your
list and proving that you are an idiot troll. I will not address it any
further- you being too stupid to realize and accept that is not my
problem".  22 Nov 2007

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.attws/msg/0aa65b7a132dbfe8

130- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are
nothing more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define
the rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules
when inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt
anyone would be foolish enough to play your game."  16 May 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9b3ed1ee20e5220

> Thanks for admitting you can't document when the standard distro 
> repositories were the only source. And why Ok. All done here....

Seems the only reason why you troll COLA is someone must be paying you,
because I don't see how anyone can earn a living and post as prolifically
as you do.

[quote]
In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal is to put the final nail into
the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of
the earth.  Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated
with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, and OS/2."

Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever.
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of the
mythology of the computer industry.

We want to place selection pressure on the companies and individuals
that show a genetic weakness for competitor's technologies, to make the
industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over time.
[/quote]

PDF page 55
Microsoft Evangelism
Comes vs. Microsoft court case

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

-- 
HPT
High Plains Thumper: "So Snit thinks that no one can see through his
lies, his deceptions, his history of forged evidence from his website,
his history of trolling CSMA and COLA, his history of sock puppets, to
name a few. It reminds me of my son when he was 2 years old.  He'd hide
from us by sticking his head behind furniture with the rest of his body
sticking out in plain sight.  He thought we could not see him.  So it is
with Snit."  16 Dec 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/559d59406d6a6c3c

High Plains Thumper stated in post hr6efl$le6$1@news.eternal-september.org
on 4/27/10 3:32 AM:

> Rick wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Rick stated:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
> 
> LOL, repeat mode, obfuscate, something Snit does continuously.

The fact is Rick has admitted he is ignorant about why most desktop Linux
users will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
distro.

The rest is just obfuscation by Rick ... and now you.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <C7FC360C.6E474%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> High Plains Thumper stated in post hr6efl$le6$1@news.eternal-september.org
> on 4/27/10 3:32 AM:
> 
> > Rick wrote:
> >> Snit wrote:
> >>> Rick stated:
> >>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
> >>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
> >>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
> >>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
> > 
> > LOL, repeat mode, obfuscate, something Snit does continuously.
> 
> The fact is Rick has admitted he is ignorant about why most desktop Linux
> users will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
> distro.
> 
> The rest is just obfuscation by Rick ... and now you.

The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as 
usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is 
any obfuscation going on, it is by you.

-- 
Lloyd

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-E1440D.08422127042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 6:42 AM:

> In article <C7FC360C.6E474%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> High Plains Thumper stated in post hr6efl$le6$1@news.eternal-september.org
>> on 4/27/10 3:32 AM:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Rick stated:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
>>>>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
>>>>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
>>>>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
>>> 
>>> LOL, repeat mode, obfuscate, something Snit does continuously.
>> 
>> The fact is Rick has admitted he is ignorant about why most desktop Linux
>> users will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
>> distro.
>> 
>> The rest is just obfuscation by Rick ... and now you.
> 
> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.

Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use no
software other than what they get from the repository (and what is already
installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the fact
that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some programs...
of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
*obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it is
an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I do
not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if this
thread is any indication of your behavior.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <C7FC42C2.6E48C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> lloydparsons-E1440D.08422127042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 6:42 AM:
> 
> > In article <C7FC360C.6E474%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> High Plains Thumper stated in post hr6efl$le6$1@news.eternal-september.org
> >> on 4/27/10 3:32 AM:
> >> 
> >>> Rick wrote:
> >>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>> Rick stated:
> >>>>>> Snit wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> My guess: you will just continue in repeat mode - you have nothing of
> >>>>>>> value to say, so you just keep repeating yourself hoping to obfuscate
> >>>>>>> the fact you are ignorant about why most desktop Linux users will not
> >>>>>>> use anything other than the repositories provided by the distro.
> >>> 
> >>> LOL, repeat mode, obfuscate, something Snit does continuously.
> >> 
> >> The fact is Rick has admitted he is ignorant about why most desktop Linux
> >> users will not use anything other than the repositories provided by the
> >> distro.
> >> 
> >> The rest is just obfuscation by Rick ... and now you.
> > 
> > The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
> > usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
> > any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
> 
> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use no
> software other than what they get from the repository (and what is already
> installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
> really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the fact
> that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some programs...
> of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
> *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
> they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
> different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it is
> an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
> such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
> will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I do
> not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if this
> thread is any indication of your behavior.

I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have 
provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that 
premise.

-- 
Lloyd

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-EFFBD9.09322527042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 7:32 AM:

>>> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
>>> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
>>> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
>> 
>> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use no
>> software other than what they get from the repository (and what is already
>> installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
>> really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the fact
>> that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some programs...
>> of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
>> *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
>> they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
>> different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it is
>> an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
>> such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
>> will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I do
>> not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if this
>> thread is any indication of your behavior.
> 
> I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have
> provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that
> premise.

I also am not proving grass is green or the sky is up.  So?  Why not take a
stand here: do you agree with me that *most* users of desktop Linux almost
surely never install programs other than the ones I note?  This does not
mean none do... or that folks who care enough about Linux to post to a tech
forum are the norm (heck, I know I have installed other programs - if
nothing else the tools from my VM software!)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <C7FC4C69.6E4A4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> lloydparsons-EFFBD9.09322527042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 7:32 AM:
> 
> >>> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
> >>> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
> >>> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
> >> 
> >> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use no
> >> software other than what they get from the repository (and what is already
> >> installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
> >> really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the fact
> >> that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some programs...
> >> of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
> >> *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
> >> they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
> >> different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it is
> >> an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
> >> such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
> >> will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I do
> >> not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if this
> >> thread is any indication of your behavior.
> > 
> > I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have
> > provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that
> > premise.
> 
> I also am not proving grass is green or the sky is up.  So?  Why not take a
> stand here: do you agree with me that *most* users of desktop Linux almost
> surely never install programs other than the ones I note?  This does not
> mean none do... or that folks who care enough about Linux to post to a tech
> forum are the norm (heck, I know I have installed other programs - if
> nothing else the tools from my VM software!)

Why would I take a stand?  I don't use Linux much at all and really only 
read in COLA.

-- 
Lloyd

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-56F22E.10202027042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 8:20 AM:

> In article <C7FC4C69.6E4A4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
>> lloydparsons-EFFBD9.09322527042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 7:32 AM:
>> 
>>>>> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
>>>>> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
>>>>> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use no
>>>> software other than what they get from the repository (and what is already
>>>> installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
>>>> really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the fact
>>>> that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some programs...
>>>> of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
>>>> *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
>>>> they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
>>>> different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it is
>>>> an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
>>>> such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
>>>> will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I do
>>>> not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if this
>>>> thread is any indication of your behavior.
>>> 
>>> I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have
>>> provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that
>>> premise.
>> 
>> I also am not proving grass is green or the sky is up.  So?  Why not take a
>> stand here: do you agree with me that *most* users of desktop Linux almost
>> surely never install programs other than the ones I note?  This does not
>> mean none do... or that folks who care enough about Linux to post to a tech
>> forum are the norm (heck, I know I have installed other programs - if
>> nothing else the tools from my VM software!)
> 
> Why would I take a stand?  I don't use Linux much at all and really only
> read in COLA.

Ah, so you have no real opinion on if I am right or wrong or how obvious or
not obvious my claim is assuming I am right.  Sorta weakens your position
here.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <C7FC51A2.6E4BB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> lloydparsons-56F22E.10202027042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 8:20 AM:
> 
> > In article <C7FC4C69.6E4A4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Lloyd Parsons stated in post
> >> lloydparsons-EFFBD9.09322527042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 7:32 
> >> AM:
> >> 
> >>>>> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
> >>>>> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there 
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use 
> >>>> no
> >>>> software other than what they get from the repository (and what is 
> >>>> already
> >>>> installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious - there
> >>>> really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to support the 
> >>>> fact
> >>>> that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at least some 
> >>>> programs...
> >>>> of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he is ignorant to this
> >>>> *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about Linux / OSS and how
> >>>> they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am ignorant of the
> >>>> different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It is not like it 
> >>>> is
> >>>> an insult to say people have areas where they are ignorant - we all have
> >>>> such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how obvious that is, Rick
> >>>> will ask me to show some study proving people are like that.  And when I 
> >>>> do
> >>>> not show one, you will jump in to say I am obfuscating... that is if 
> >>>> this
> >>>> thread is any indication of your behavior.
> >>> 
> >>> I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have
> >>> provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that
> >>> premise.
> >> 
> >> I also am not proving grass is green or the sky is up.  So?  Why not take 
> >> a
> >> stand here: do you agree with me that *most* users of desktop Linux almost
> >> surely never install programs other than the ones I note?  This does not
> >> mean none do... or that folks who care enough about Linux to post to a 
> >> tech
> >> forum are the norm (heck, I know I have installed other programs - if
> >> nothing else the tools from my VM software!)
> > 
> > Why would I take a stand?  I don't use Linux much at all and really only
> > read in COLA.
> 
> Ah, so you have no real opinion on if I am right or wrong or how obvious or
> not obvious my claim is assuming I am right.  Sorta weakens your position
> here.  :)

Not at all.  You made a claim, it was challenged, it is up to you to 
provide proof of the claim per CSMA/COLA rules!!  :)

-- 
Lloyd

Lloyd Parsons stated in post
lloydparsons-80D8FA.10380027042010@port80.individual.net on 4/27/10 8:38 AM:

.... 
>>>>>>> The fact really is that Rick questions the claim you made and you, as
>>>>>>> usual, have not provided any sort of support to your claim.  If there is
>>>>>>> any obfuscation going on, it is by you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you saying you disagree with the idea that most Linux users will use
>>>>>> no software other than what they get from the repository (and what is
>>>>>> already installed, of course!).  To me this is, well, completely obvious
>>>>>> - there really is no support needed.  It is like asking someone to
>>>>>> support the fact that most OS X users will use the dock to launch at
>>>>>> least some programs... of course they will.  Rick, however, admitted he
>>>>>> is ignorant to this *obvious* fact.  Fine: Rick does not know much about
>>>>>> Linux / OSS and how they are used by most people.  No harm there - I am
>>>>>> ignorant of the different types of motorcycles and how each is used.  It
>>>>>> is not like it is an insult to say people have areas where they are
>>>>>> ignorant - we all have such areas... of course.  Of course, no matter how
>>>>>> obvious that is, Rick will ask me to show some study proving people are
>>>>>> like that.  And when I do not show one, you will jump in to say I am
>>>>>> obfuscating... that is if this thread is any indication of your behavior.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I didn't say I agree or disagree with your premise, and you still have
>>>>> provided nothing more than pure conjecture as to the validity of that
>>>>> premise.
>>>>> 
>>>> I also am not proving grass is green or the sky is up.  So?  Why not take a
>>>> stand here: do you agree with me that *most* users of desktop Linux almost
>>>> surely never install programs other than the ones I note?  This does not
>>>> mean none do... or that folks who care enough about Linux to post to a tech
>>>> forum are the norm (heck, I know I have installed other programs - if
>>>> nothing else the tools from my VM software!)
>>>> 
>>> Why would I take a stand?  I don't use Linux much at all and really only
>>> read in COLA.
>>> 
>> Ah, so you have no real opinion on if I am right or wrong or how obvious or
>> not obvious my claim is assuming I am right.  Sorta weakens your position
>> here.  :)
>> 
> Not at all.  You made a claim, it was challenged, it is up to you to provide
> proof of the claim per CSMA/COLA rules!!  :)

Actually, *my* claim was never challenged.  Rick asked me to support his
straw man.  I never said the repositories were the only source (which is
what Rick asked me to support)... I noted they are the only source most
people will use.  And this is common knowledge... and the fact that all the
software most people will ever use is in the repository is often touted as
an advantage of desktop Linux.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Why isn't this thread being cross-posted to COLA so it will hit my 
filter? It has to do with linux, not OS X.

On 2010-04-25, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
>  Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>> > http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> There are more long-standing issues:
>> 
>> 
>>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
>> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
>> everyone's phones.
>
> This statement in highly misleading to people who don't understand the 
> special definition of the word 'free' that's being used. There are, of 
> course, tens of thousands of $0 apps for the iPhone.

....all of which have to pass the gatekeeper St. Steve.

Steve might arbitrarily change the rules all of a sudden and make their
most favorite app forbidden and they will have no recourse really. It's
an environment that's even more stiffling than Windows.

[deletia]

....although RMS has always sort of had it in for Apple. Little wonder.

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On 2010-04-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> > Rotten Apple wrote:
>>> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >
>>> > There are more long-standing issues:
>>> >
>>> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
>>> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
>>> > everyone's phones.
>>> 
>>> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
>>> is only right.
>>
>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of 
>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell 
>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's 
>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an 
>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of 
>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy 
>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to 
>> discover your app.
>
> Exactly. When I was a lot younger I signed off some game SW I had
> written to a distributor - never heard from them again. Robbed me
> blind. Apple are ensuring good coverage, visibility and hosting support
> etc. 30% is a bargain.
>
> ONLY in COLA are the people so dumb that they think they could possibly
> distribute and support their own SW for less and make more money.

   This is 2010, not 1985. For someone that likes to accuse other people
of using terminals, you really are a throwback yourself.

   Also what makes you think Apple will do a thing to lift a finger to 
support 3rd party software. All they do is act as gatekeeper and merchant.
The amount of time they spend on actual Quality Assurance is not long enough
to be meangingful.

   Apple primarily serves as a means to tell developers that all of their
time and effort was a total waste.

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On 2010-04-25, KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>
>
> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and an even
> smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all of those other means
> of distribution are not as efficient?

....or since the browser is so lame on the iphone, those sales are really
rather redundant. Or since many of those apps are gratisware, those "sales"
are redundant for another reason.

If you were to funnel all Mac downloads through apple.com and leave Steve
as the gatekeeper then you would probably see similarly skewed numbers.

Is Apple honest enough to separate out their Simtel numbers from the Best
Buy numbers?

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>> >> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>> >> >> >> >> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>> >> >> >> > an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>> >> >> >> > all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>> >> >> >> > of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>> >> >> >> the app store business....
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>> >> >> > going to be a bit of an issue?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>> >> >> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>> >> 
>> >> Exactly.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> > I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>> >> > with.
>> >> 
>> >> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>> >> 
>> > No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>> 
>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>> then, LinuxPPC.
>
> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 

....except that's just a big fat myth.

Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
can find that won't work with MacOS.

The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
other interesting things that you could plug into.

This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.

[deletia]

I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.

If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
Macs to n00bs anymore.

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:

> On Apr 25, 9:07�am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
>> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>
> 
> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market 

Apple has 16% of that market, down from 18%.

> and an even
> smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> sales go through the Apple store. 

Counted in that total are such gems as the "shake a baby" app, and the
"virtual beer" app.   In short, 99% are pure crap.

> So maybe all of those other means
> of distribution are not as efficient?

Or it just proves your figures are incorrect?

On 2010-04-26, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
>> >> iPhone apps.
>> > 
>> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
>> 
>> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The 
>> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
>
> Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't 
> really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application 

    I dunno. The guy that was a clear Apple user and eviscerated the iPad
for it's document transfer restrictions and complexity certainly seemed
to have a clear interest in "abstract notions like freedom".

> availability, which is quite important to regular users.
>

     Once people use their ipads as more than an Archos 9, then they will
come up against problems. Admittedly they might not ever do that. In this
case then though the iPad is not nearly as revolutionary as the fanboys 
want everyone to believe.


-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On 2010-04-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
[deletia]
>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>> slap in the chops!
>>
>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone 
>> apps.
>
> You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
> written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on

    By definition, given the nature of the device: iPhone software CAN NOT
be written by the users. It's the most perfect example of top down software
that you can come up with.

[deletia]

    Some guy with an Ubuntu PPA is "by the users, for the users".

    Some guy in the iphone store is not. 

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

On 2010-04-25, Nashton <nana@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
>>>
>>
>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>
>>
>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>> everyone's phones.
>
> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>
> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?

You mean like Michealangelo's David?

[deletia]

Some people would consider some of the paintings hanging in many of the
world's national galleries to be "smut". If I created an app that was 
nothing more than a "National Gallery Slideshow", would I have to worry
about being "banned from the App Store"?

If you are a crass corporation worried about upsetting Peoria, perhaps.

"Art" and censorship don't do well together, even if it's just Larry Flint
that's the victim.

-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-04-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In article <q74da7-pee.ln1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> > Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> >> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/ 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >
>>>> > There are more long-standing issues:
>>>> >
>>>> >     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
>>>> > to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
>>>> > everyone's phones.
>>>> 
>>>> Wrong. They pay a % for the promotion and distribution of their app. As
>>>> is only right.
>>>
>>> I love all the people complaining about App Store terms on behalf of 
>>> developers. Pretty much anyone who has ever tried to sell 
>>> self-distributed software -- or even really thought about what's 
>>> involved -- is going to realize that the 30% Apple is asking for is an 
>>> absolute bargain, when you consider they save you the trouble of 
>>> implementing billing, fulfillment, installation, updating, and copy 
>>> protection. Plus the App Store makes it much easier for people to 
>>> discover your app.
>>
>> Exactly. When I was a lot younger I signed off some game SW I had
>> written to a distributor - never heard from them again. Robbed me
>> blind. Apple are ensuring good coverage, visibility and hosting support
>> etc. 30% is a bargain.
>>
>> ONLY in COLA are the people so dumb that they think they could possibly
>> distribute and support their own SW for less and make more money.
>
>    This is 2010, not 1985. For someone that likes to accuse other people
> of using terminals, you really are a throwback yourself.
>
>    Also what makes you think Apple will do a thing to lift a finger to 
> support 3rd party software. All they do is act as gatekeeper and merchant.
> The amount of time they spend on actual Quality Assurance is not long enough
> to be meangingful.

Jed, what the hell are you talking about? Apple are now tightening their
approval process for apps distributed through the Apple store.

>
>    Apple primarily serves as a means to tell developers that all of their
> time and effort was a total waste.

You really need to see a doctor.

In article <slrnhteac3.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2010-04-26, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <FPGdnQNygYBowUnWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:56:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <FPGdnQVygYD-yknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
> >> >  Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> >> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on
> >> >> iPhone apps.
> >> > 
> >> > A 200K+ and counting bottleneck?  :)
> >> 
> >> Funny. We are talking about 2 different things,  and you know it. The 
> >> bottle neck is the single source for iPhone apps.
> >
> > Right. You're talking about some abstract notion of freedom that isn't 
> > really on the radar for regular users. He's talking about application 
> 
>     I dunno. The guy that was a clear Apple user and eviscerated the iPad
> for it's document transfer restrictions and complexity certainly seemed
> to have a clear interest in "abstract notions like freedom".

Um... no. If you're referring to what I think you are, he was pretty 
clearly talking about the specific way that sharing documents with the 
iPad version of iWork works. This is related Apple moving away from 
certain desktop UI approaches, and their alternate approaches not yet 
being mature enough to provide all the same functionality. It has 
nothing to do with abstract notions of freedom.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnhteags.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 4/27/10 11:17
AM:

> On 2010-04-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:44:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post FPGdnQ1ygYABo0nWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>>> 4/25/10 6:07 AM:
> [deletia]
>>>> Rick will be happy. Oh wait, he was trying to be smart and got another
>>>> slap in the chops!
>>> 
>>> The both of you fail to grasp the point of the Apple bottleneck on iPhone
>>> apps.
>> 
>> You failed to grasp that nearly all the good SW for the iPhone is
>> written by users and to match their needs. Nothing is forced on
> 
>     By definition, given the nature of the device: iPhone software CAN NOT
> be written by the users. It's the most perfect example of top down software
> that you can come up with.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>     Some guy with an Ubuntu PPA is "by the users, for the users".
> 
>     Some guy in the iphone store is not.

I suspect pretty much everyone who writes iPhone software also uses the
iPhone, at least in some capacity.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-04-25, Nashton <nana@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>
>>>
>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>> everyone's phones.
>>
>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>
>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>
> You mean like Michealangelo's David?
>
> [deletia]
>
> Some people would consider some of the paintings hanging in many of the
> world's national galleries to be "smut". If I created an app that was 
> nothing more than a "National Gallery Slideshow", would I have to worry
> about being "banned from the App Store"?
>
> If you are a crass corporation worried about upsetting Peoria, perhaps.
>
> "Art" and censorship don't do well together, even if it's just Larry Flint
> that's the victim.

The problem with know nothing freetards like you is you expect other
people to do the hard development work and then YOU tell them how it
will run. Life isn't like that. Scrounging or stealing other peoples
work and/or trying to bully said developers into how they manage their
SW is no way to go through life son.

Educate yourself:-

http://www.apptism.com/

In article <slrnhte9bg.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2010-04-25, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <kdNAn.276536$wr5.273798@newsfe22.iad>,
> >  Nick Ballard <nrballard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rotten Apple wrote:
> >> > http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
> >> >  
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> There are more long-standing issues:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>     * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax 
> >> to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on 
> >> everyone's phones.
> >
> > This statement in highly misleading to people who don't understand the 
> > special definition of the word 'free' that's being used. There are, of 
> > course, tens of thousands of $0 apps for the iPhone.
> 
> ...all of which have to pass the gatekeeper St. Steve.

All of which *did* pass the gatekeeper. I know Apple's detractors like 
to obsess over obscure edge cases, but pretending that the tiny fraction 
of controversial App Store rejections is a serious reason for regular 
people to reject the entire platform is ludicrous.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <1p7shzgmxxbmz.2d8o1rzrefgl$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 25, 9:07�am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable software
> >> from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
> >>
> > 
> > But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market 
> 
> Apple has 16% of that market, down from 18%.
LOL


> 
> > and an even
> > smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of all mobile app
> > sales go through the Apple store. 
> 
> Counted in that total are such gems as the "shake a baby" app, and the
> "virtual beer" app.   In short, 99% are pure crap.

LOL

> 
> > So maybe all of those other means
> > of distribution are not as efficient?
> 
> Or it just proves your figures are incorrect?

LOL

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
(in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):

> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>>>> with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>>>> 
>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>>> 
>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>> 
>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
> 
> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
> 
> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
> can find that won't work with MacOS.

Such as....?
> 
> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
> other interesting things that you could plug into.
> 
> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.


What walled-garden nonsense?

> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
> Macs to n00bs anymore.


One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work done with 
a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me that, 
except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:21:57 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
(in article <slrnhteaq5.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):

> On 2010-04-25, Nashton <nana@na.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>> everyone's phones.
>> 
>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>> 
>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
> 
> You mean like Michealangelo's David?
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> Some people would consider some of the paintings hanging in many of the
> world's national galleries to be "smut". If I created an app that was 
> nothing more than a "National Gallery Slideshow", would I have to worry
> about being "banned from the App Store"?
> 
> If you are a crass corporation worried about upsetting Peoria, perhaps.
> 
> "Art" and censorship don't do well together, even if it's just Larry Flint
> that's the victim.
> 
> 

You sure use hyperbole a lot to help push your weak arguments forward. BTW, 
porn is in the eye of the beholder. I know a gay couple (I'm in the music 
biz) who have a copy of Michealangelo's "David" in the foyer of their home. 
To them, that statue is pornography.  

Fa-groon wrote:

>I know a gay couple (I'm in the music 
>biz) who have a copy of Michealangelo's "David" in the foyer of their home. 
>To them, that statue is pornography.  

No it's not.

On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>>>> 
>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>>> 
>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
>> 
>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>> 
>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>
> Such as....?

Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.

>> 
>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>> 
>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.
>
>
> What walled-garden nonsense?

    The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge common
video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adept
at adding support for these than Linux.

>
>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>
>
> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work done with 
> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me that, 
> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.

   Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand X application
that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.

   These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
like "geek" or "computer nerd".

-- 


	Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997                |||
	reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk           / | \
	both at the same time was something worth patenting.

On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:21:57 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhteaq5.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>> On 2010-04-25, Nashton <nana@na.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone/
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>>> everyone's phones.
>>> 
>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>> 
>>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>> 
>> You mean like Michealangelo's David?
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>> Some people would consider some of the paintings hanging in many of the
>> world's national galleries to be "smut". If I created an app that was 
>> nothing more than a "National Gallery Slideshow", would I have to worry
>> about being "banned from the App Store"?
>> 
>> If you are a crass corporation worried about upsetting Peoria, perhaps.
>> 
>> "Art" and censorship don't do well together, even if it's just Larry Flint
>> that's the victim.
>> 
>> 
>
> You sure use hyperbole a lot to help push your weak arguments forward. BTW, 

    There's nothing hyperbolic about it.

    The term "banned in boston" is not just a figure of speech.

[deletia]

-- 


	Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997                |||
	reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk           / | \
	both at the same time was something worth patenting.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
(in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):

> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>> 
>>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>>>>> 
>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>>>> 
>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
>>> 
>>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>>> 
>>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
>>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
>>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
>>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>> 
>> Such as....?
> 
> Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.
> 
>>> 
>>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
>>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>>> 
>>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
>>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>>> 
>>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
>>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
>>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.
>> 
>> 
>> What walled-garden nonsense?
> 
>     The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge common
> video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adept
> at adding support for these than Linux.
> 
>> 
>>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
>>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work done 
>> with 
>> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me 
>> that, 
>> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.
> 
>    Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand X 
> application
> that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.

Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lousy OS 
underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might find 
screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the 
necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewildering. If 
I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a PC 
that  HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They can't 
figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their computers 
that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac owner 
friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friendly and 
non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac 
problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows.  BTW, The iTunes store IS 
available through Windows. 
 
> These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
> like "geek" or "computer nerd".

I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is less 
intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a 
"Cult-of-Steve" I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of any cult. I use Apple 
products because they work for me, so for the here and now, I like them (just 
for your information, I own only four Apple products: A G5 Tower, a G3 iBook, 
an Apple TV box, and an iPod Touch. No Apple keyboard, no Apple monitor, no 
iPhone, no iPad, no iMac). If something else comes along that I think is 
better, I'll go with that but I'll tell you right off the bat, that something 
"better" is NEITHER Windows nor Linux.  

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:09:06 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
(in article <slrnhtgue2.pkp.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):

> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:21:57 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>> (in article <slrnhteaq5.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>> 
>>> On 2010-04-25, Nashton <nana@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/24/10 10:50 PM, Nick Ballard wrote:
>>>>> Rotten Apple wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.appleiphonereview.com/reviews/25-things-wrong-with-the-iphone
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are more long-standing issues:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to
>>>>> Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on
>>>>> everyone's phones.
>>>> 
>>>> That's unfair. There are many free apps on the app store.
>>>> As long as apps aren't offensive or promote pornography, they are blocked.
>>>> 
>>>> Is this such a hardship for you to endure?
>>> 
>>> You mean like Michealangelo's David?
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>>> 
>>> Some people would consider some of the paintings hanging in many of the
>>> world's national galleries to be "smut". If I created an app that was 
>>> nothing more than a "National Gallery Slideshow", would I have to worry
>>> about being "banned from the App Store"?
>>> 
>>> If you are a crass corporation worried about upsetting Peoria, perhaps.
>>> 
>>> "Art" and censorship don't do well together, even if it's just Larry Flint
>>> that's the victim.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> You sure use hyperbole a lot to help push your weak arguments forward. BTW, 
> 
>     There's nothing hyperbolic about it.
> 
>     The term "banned in boston" is not just a figure of speech.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> 

You mean it WASN'T merely a figure of speech. Today, the Archdiocese of 
Boston hasn't the power to bully the city government into banning anything. 

On 2010-04-28, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>>> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>>>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>>>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>>>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>>>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
>>>> 
>>>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>>>> 
>>>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
>>>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
>>>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
>>>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>>> 
>>> Such as....?
>> 
>> Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
>>>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>>>> 
>>>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
>>>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.
>>>> 
>>>> [deletia]
>>>> 
>>>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
>>>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
>>>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What walled-garden nonsense?
>> 
>>     The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge common
>> video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adept
>> at adding support for these than Linux.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
>>>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work done 
>>> with 
>>> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me 
>>> that, 
>>> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.
>> 
>>    Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand X 
>> application
>> that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.
>
> Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lousy OS 
> underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might find 
 
    Not at all.

    What Apple gains in "simplicity" it usually gains due to the fact that
it has left interesting things out. Once you go beyond that, the advantage
due to being "superior" flies straight out the window.

> screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the 

    Who "screws around  with the computer". That is just nonsense that lame
trolls bring up when they don't really have anything meaningful to say.

> necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewildering. If 

    More empty rhetoric.

> I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a PC 
> that  HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They can't 
> figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their computers 
> that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac owner 
> friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friendly and 
> non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac 

    The mac does NOTHING for this sort of person.

    At best, it's better for them because they don't have to worry about 
malware. However, that's a quite different matter from "being easy".

> problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows.  BTW, The iTunes store IS 
> available through Windows. 
>  
>> These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
>> like "geek" or "computer nerd".
>
> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is less 
> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a 

    It's less powerful. It's less useful by default. It's more difficult to
get it to the point where it is useful.

[deletia]

-- 


	Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997                |||
	reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk           / | \
	both at the same time was something worth patenting.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:26:15 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
(in article <slrnhth6f7.rhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):

> On 2010-04-28, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>> (in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>> 
>>> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>>>> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store.  So maybe all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that.  But with open apps, isn't that always
>>>>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is alway
>>>>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Chasing windows?  LOL!!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to deal
>>>>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market place!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece of 
>>>>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to, 
>>>>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is.  The 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it manages
>>>>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between 
>>>>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that you
>>>>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>>>> 
>>>> Such as....?
>>> 
>>> Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of the
>>>>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of building
>>>>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall warts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>> 
>>>>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts". 
>>>>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia 
>>>>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What walled-garden nonsense?
>>> 
>>> The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge common
>>> video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adept
>>> at adding support for these than Linux.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
>>>>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work done 
>>>> with 
>>>> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me 
>>>> that, 
>>>> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.
>>> 
>>> Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand X 
>>> application
>>> that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.
>> 
>> Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lousy 
>> OS 
>> underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might find 
>  
>     Not at all.

We;re going to have to agree to disagree here, because I find Windows VERY 
primitive compared to OSX, and I'm not alone in that opinion. Lots of 
computer pundits (like those from PC magazine) seem to agree with me. 
> 
>     What Apple gains in "simplicity" it usually gains due to the fact that
> it has left interesting things out. Once you go beyond that, the advantage
> due to being "superior" flies straight out the window.

The average joe doesn't care about those "interesting things:. Those are for 
geeks. 
> 
>> screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the 
> 
>     Who "screws around  with the computer". That is just nonsense that lame
> trolls bring up when they don't really have anything meaningful to say.

You mean like those "interesting things" that Apple leaves out and most users 
NEVER MISS?
> 
>> necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewildering. 
>> If 
> 
>     More empty rhetoric.
> 
>> I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a PC 
>> that  HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They can't 
>> figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their computers 
>> that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac 
>> owner 
>> friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friendly 
>> and 
>> non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac 
> 
>     The mac does NOTHING for this sort of person.
> 
>     At best, it's better for them because they don't have to worry about 
> malware. However, that's a quite different matter from "being easy".

But it is easier. Not easy, mind you, just easier. No computer is as easy as 
it needs to be and we're a long way from getting there, too. 
> 
>> problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows.  BTW, The iTunes store 
>> IS 
>> available through Windows. 
>> 
>>> These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
>>> like "geek" or "computer nerd".
>> 
>> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is 
>> less 
>> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a 
> 
>     It's less powerful. It's less useful by default. It's more difficult to
> get it to the point where it is useful.

But it's not less powerful. That's where you computer enthusiasts err. You 
think that complexity = power, and it doesn't. 

On Apr 28, 3:45=A0pm, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.j...@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> >> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.j...@nomad.mishnet>):
>
> >>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKun...@supernews.com>,
> >>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKun...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzA...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzA...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07=C2=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installabl=
e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market a=
nd
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,4%=
 of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store. =A0So maybe=
 all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch up =
in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that. =A0But with open apps, isn't that alwa=
ys
> >>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is al=
way
> >>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>
> >>>>>>>> Chasing windows? =A0LOL!!
>
> >>>>>>> Exactly.
>
> >>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to de=
al
> >>>>>>>> with.
>
> >>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>
> >>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market pla=
ce!
>
> >>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the piece=
 of
> >>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving to=
,
> >>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>
> >>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is. =A0The
>
> >>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>
> >>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it mana=
ges
> >>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is between
> >>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that y=
ou
> >>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>
> >> Such as....?
>
> > Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.
>
> >>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of th=
e
> >>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>
> >>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of build=
ing
> >>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall wart=
s.
>
> >>> [deletia]
>
> >>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts".
> >>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedia
> >>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense.
>
> >> What walled-garden nonsense?
>
> > =A0 =A0 The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge co=
mmon
> > video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adept
> > at adding support for these than Linux.
>
> >>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommend
> >>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>
> >> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work don=
e
> >> with
> >> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to me
> >> that,
> >> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.
>
> > =A0 =A0Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand =
X
> > application
> > that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.
>
> Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lousy=
 OS
> underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might find
> screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the
> necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewildering=
.. If
> I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a PC
> that =A0HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They ca=
n't
> figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their computers
> that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac ow=
ner
> friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friendly =
and
> non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac
> problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows. =A0BTW, The iTunes st=
ore IS
> available through Windows.
>

HAHAHAHA Bullshit of the Year award has to be given to the paragraph
above.







> > These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
> > like "geek" or "computer nerd".
>
> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is l=
ess
> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a
> "Cult-of-Steve" I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of any cult. I use Appl=
e
> products because they work for me, so for the here and now, I like them (=
just
> for your information, I own only four Apple products: A G5 Tower, a G3 iB=
ook,
> an Apple TV box, and an iPod Touch. No Apple keyboard, no Apple monitor, =
no
> iPhone, no iPad, no iMac). If something else comes along that I think is
> better, I'll go with that but I'll tell you right off the bat, that somet=
hing
> "better" is NEITHER Windows nor Linux. =A0

>
> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is l=
ess
> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a
> "Cult-of-Steve" I wouldn't know. I'm not a member of any cult. I use Appl=
e
> products because they work for me, so for the here and now, I like them (=
just
> for your information, I own only four Apple products: A G5 Tower, a G3 iB=
ook,
> an Apple TV box, and an iPod Touch. No Apple keyboard, no Apple monitor, =
no
> iPhone, no iPad, no iMac). If something else comes along that I think is
> better, I'll go with that but I'll tell you right off the bat, that somet=
hing
> "better" is NEITHER Windows nor Linux. =A0

No cult members ever think they are in a cult, they still are though.
You are definitely a member of the Cult of Mac.

On Apr 28, 10:53=A0pm, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:26:15 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhth6f7.rhu.j...@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2010-04-28, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> >> (in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.j...@nomad.mishnet>):
>
> >>> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-gr...@mad.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> >>>> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.j...@nomad.mishnet>):
>
> >>>>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKun...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKun...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzA...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzA...@supernews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07=C3=82=C2=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wr=
ote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And.. of course, users are able to obtain easily installa=
ble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software from a wide range of vendors, besides Apple...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet and still, with only 20% of the smart phone market=
 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an even smaller share of the mobile market in general, 99,=
4% of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all mobile app sales go through the Apple store. =A0So may=
be all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those other means of distribution are not as efficient?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe it means that the others are still playing catch u=
p in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the app store business....
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a bit of that. =A0But with open apps, isn't that al=
ways
> >>>>>>>>>>>> going to be a bit of an issue?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. After all, Apple, with OS X's OSS underpinnings is =
alway
> >>>>>>>>>>> chasing closed source Windows, right?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Chasing windows? =A0LOL!!
>
> >>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think Apple would want the market that Windows has to =
deal
> >>>>>>>>>> with.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That would be the rank and file, average computer user?
>
> >>>>>>>> No that would be the run my OS on any old piece of shit market p=
lace!
>
> >>>>>>> If they had allowed that around 10 years ago (leaving out the pie=
ce of
> >>>>>>> shit insult), I might still be using OS X now, instead of moving =
to,
> >>>>>>> then, LinuxPPC.
>
> >>>>>> But if they had done that, OSX wouldn't be as good as it is. =A0Th=
e
>
> >>>>> ...except that's just a big fat myth.
>
> >>>>> Whether or not "OSX is good" is quite independent of how well it ma=
nages
> >>>>> to support a particular bit of gear. The distinction there is betwe=
en
> >>>>> whether it works or not at all. OTOH, there is plenty of stuff that=
 you
> >>>>> can find that won't work with MacOS.
>
> >>>> Such as....?
>
> >>> Dell 1600, Haupauage 1212, Streamzap remote.
>
> >>>>> The fact that the box is tightly controlled doesn't address all of =
the
> >>>>> other interesting things that you could plug into.
>
> >>>>> This is especially true since many fanboys advocate the idea of bui=
lding
> >>>>> your Mac as an Atari 800 style octopus with many cables and wall wa=
rts.
>
> >>>>> [deletia]
>
> >>>>> I run Linux on Apple hardware not so much for "getting at the guts"=
..
> >>>>> I get better hardware support format from Linux and wider multimedi=
a
> >>>>> format support without the fanboy excuses or walled garden nonsense=
..
>
> >>>> What walled-garden nonsense?
>
> >>> The walled garden nonesense where the OS doesn't acknowledge common
> >>> video camera and broadcast video formats on it's own and is less adep=
t
> >>> at adding support for these than Linux.
>
> >>>>> If Windows weren't still a malware magnet, I wouldn't even recommen=
d
> >>>>> Macs to n00bs anymore.
>
> >>>> One recommends Macs to anyone who wants to get computer-based work d=
one
> >>>> with
> >>>> a minimum of fuss and feathers and a maximum of enjoyment. Seems to =
me
> >>>> that,
> >>>> except for computer nerds, that would include most anybody.
>
> >>> Unless you're just interested in the iTunes store or some Brand X
> >>> application
> >>> that doesn't exist on Windows, that's probably not at all true.
>
> >> Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lo=
usy
> >> OS
> >> underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might f=
ind
>
> > =A0 =A0 Not at all.
>
> We;re going to have to agree to disagree here, because I find Windows VER=
Y
> primitive compared to OSX, and I'm not alone in that opinion. Lots of
> computer pundits (like those from PC magazine) seem to agree with me.
>
>
>
> > =A0 =A0 What Apple gains in "simplicity" it usually gains due to the fa=
ct that
> > it has left interesting things out. Once you go beyond that, the advant=
age
> > due to being "superior" flies straight out the window.
>
> The average joe doesn't care about those "interesting things:. Those are =
for
> geeks.
>
>
>
> >> screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the
>
> > =A0 =A0 Who "screws around =A0with the computer". That is just nonsense=
 that lame
> > trolls bring up when they don't really have anything meaningful to say.
>
> You mean like those "interesting things" that Apple leaves out and most u=
sers
> NEVER MISS?



How would you know that? 98% of the worlds computer users will never
even sniff a Mac.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewilder=
ing.
> >> If
>
> > =A0 =A0 More empty rhetoric.
>
> >> I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a=
 PC
> >> that =A0HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They=
 can't
> >> figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their compute=
rs
> >> that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac
> >> owner
> >> friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friend=
ly
> >> and
> >> non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac
>
> > =A0 =A0 The mac does NOTHING for this sort of person.
>
> > =A0 =A0 At best, it's better for them because they don't have to worry =
about
> > malware. However, that's a quite different matter from "being easy".
>
> But it is easier. Not easy, mind you, just easier. No computer is as easy=
 as
> it needs to be and we're a long way from getting there, too.
>
>
>
> >> problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows. =A0BTW, The iTunes=
 store
> >> IS
> >> available through Windows.
>
> >>> These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for ter=
ms
> >>> like "geek" or "computer nerd".
>
> >> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX i=
s
> >> less
> >> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for=
 a
>
> > =A0 =A0 It's less powerful. It's less useful by default. It's more diff=
icult to
> > get it to the point where it is useful.
>
> But it's not less powerful. That's where you computer enthusiasts err. Yo=
u
> think that complexity =3D power, and it doesn't.

On 2010-04-29, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:26:15 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
> (in article <slrnhth6f7.rhu.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>
>> On 2010-04-28, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:08:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>>> (in article <slrnhtguc9.pkp.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-04-27, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0700, JEDIDIAH wrote
>>>>> (in article <slrnhtea5j.2c7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>):
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2010-04-25, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnThygYBj_UnWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:29:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnT5ygYClwknWnZ2dnUVZ_tKunZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQFygYB9xknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:55:24 -0500, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <FPGdnQpygYCRyknWnZ2dnUVZ_tIzAAAA@supernews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:55:33 -0700, KDT wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 9:07 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
[deletia]
>>> Of course it's true. Windows still has a lousy GUI and a worse-than-lousy 
>>> OS 
>>> underneath it and Linux is even more primitive. Computer geeks might find 
>>  
>>     Not at all.
>
> We;re going to have to agree to disagree here, because I find Windows VERY 
> primitive compared to OSX, and I'm not alone in that opinion. Lots of 

   Primitive is not a terribly descriptive bit of rhetoric.

> computer pundits (like those from PC magazine) seem to agree with me. 

   Appeals to authority don't alter this.

>> 
>>     What Apple gains in "simplicity" it usually gains due to the fact that
>> it has left interesting things out. Once you go beyond that, the advantage
>> due to being "superior" flies straight out the window.
>
> The average joe doesn't care about those "interesting things:. Those are for 
> geeks. 

    The average joe might care about his video camera or TV recordings.

    Your distorted view of the average joe is dependent on them never being
exposed to things that are outside of Apple's walled garden. The wall is
not that high, so it's pretty easy to see to the other side.

>> 
>>> screwing-around with the computer fun, but the average joe finds the 
>> 
>>     Who "screws around  with the computer". That is just nonsense that lame
>> trolls bring up when they don't really have anything meaningful to say.
>
> You mean like those "interesting things" that Apple leaves out and most users 
> NEVER MISS?

     Apple users like to redefine "geek" until the only thing you are left
with is a slightly dressed up ipod.

>> 
>>> necessity of this level of intimacy with a computer OS merely bewildering. 
>>> If 
>> 
>>     More empty rhetoric.
>> 
>>> I had a dollar for every non-technical acquaintance of mine who owns a PC 
>>> that  HAVE NOT CLUE ONE ABOUT IT, I'd be a relatively rich man. They can't 
>>> figure out how to do anything and if anything happens to their computers 
>>> that's even slightly out of the ordinary, they're lost. Now I have Mac 
>>> owner 
>>> friends that aren't any better, but the OS is so much more user friendly 
>>> and 
>>> non-threatening than Windows, that I can usually talk them through Mac 
>> 
>>     The mac does NOTHING for this sort of person.
>> 
>>     At best, it's better for them because they don't have to worry about 
>> malware. However, that's a quite different matter from "being easy".
>
> But it is easier. Not easy, mind you, just easier. No computer is as easy as 

    No it isn't.

> it needs to be and we're a long way from getting there, too. 

    Most interesting things on a computer like writing a CD still intimidate
the average joe. Switching from a PC to a Mac doesn't really alter this. The
idea that such things are easier on the Mac is just unsubstantiated hype.

>> 
>>> problems on the phone. This is not so with Windows.  BTW, The iTunes store 
>>> IS 
>>> available through Windows. 
>>> 
>>>> These days the Cult-of-Steve seems intent on lowering the bar for terms
>>>> like "geek" or "computer nerd".
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure that I follow you, here. But if you are saying that OSX is 
>>> less 
>>> intimidating and easier to understand than Windows, I'll agree. As for a 
>> 
>>     It's less powerful. It's less useful by default. It's more difficult to
>> get it to the point where it is useful.
>
> But it's not less powerful. That's where you computer enthusiasts err. You 
> think that complexity = power, and it doesn't. 

    Nope. Power is not complexity oddly enough.

    Infact, a less powerful and less functional interface will ultimately 
subject the end user to more complexity and more difficulty. That's the
real problem with a walled-garden approach. Things that should be simple
become harder than they need to be.

    Apple is supposed to be a "content creator's system" but is not very
sophisticated at dealing with a lot of non-Apple formats. It's also not
terribly sophisticated about how it goes about plugging those holes.

-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \