From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Microsoft shocked the computing industry when they said they wanted a subscription based OS. Apple is doing exactly that and nobody even
knows it. The features you bought in one OS X version don't work until
you buy the next.

For 10.0, 10.1, and now 10.2, paid upgrades are being released before
the features shown on the box work correctly. OS X is very buggy, and
if any of those bugs hit you in your daily routine, you have an OS that doesn't work as advertised.

Remember how a paid update to 10.2 was required to get a stable Window Manager? A buggy application can crash the 10.0 and 10.1 Window
Manager, which then instantly kills all GUI applications. Unsaved
changes are lost. The ads for OS X have always said that can't happen.

My 867MHz G4 has always had problems after waking from sleep. A paid
upgrade to 10.1 stopped the system hangs when the sound hardware failed
to wake. A paid upgrade to 10.2 was needed for the sound to to actually
work after waking. Throughout all of these upgrades, the motherboard
Ethernet has not been reliable after waking. 10.2 helped but it still
has cases where the carrier cycles on and off until the next time it is
put to sleep.

AFP and SMB have always led to system hangs. It barely worked enough in
10.0 and 10.1 to mount a volume from a LAN. File and folder locks were unbalanced. Simply aborting one of three or more file copies created a
locked directory that would hang any machine that looked at it. A paid upgrade to 10.2 fixed system hangs due to unbalanced file locks but it
still hangs the whole system if the connection to the remote volume is
poor. Combine this with a flakey motherboard Ethernet and you get
nothing done.

Now there's this corrupted .DS_Store issue. If you view a window in
Finder containing files with incomplete resource forks, such as files
being installed from a CD, it results in a directory that will crash any
OS X machine upon viewing it. It crashes the system even if it's on a
disk image or a remote volume. One has to delete the invisible
.DS_Store files on the command line. There are no other tools to fix it.

I've been doing hardware reboots of this so-called robust operating
system like it was Windows NT4. 10.3 is almost out for sale and it
looks like there's no chance in hell that 10.2 will be fixed to work as advertised. I'm paying for upgrades to get the features I bought one or
two versions ago. It's funny how OS 9 still gets bug fixes.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-89AEA4.00144603072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

locked directory that would hang any machine that looked at it. A paid upgrade to 10.2 fixed system hangs due to unbalanced file locks but it
still hangs the whole system if the connection to the remote volume is
poor. Combine this with a flakey motherboard Ethernet and you get

For me, it only hangs the Finder. Which is of course also too much, but
not as bad as Os 9. At least I can do something else while the Finder
does whatever it´s (not) doing.

disk image or a remote volume. One has to delete the invisible
.DS_Store files on the command line. There are no other tools to fix it.

None that shipped with the system, perhaps, but a freeware app called
Coctail can delete those.

.lauri
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Paying for periodic upgrades is not the same as a subscription-based OS.
A subscription expires. Jaguar does not (aside from any new software
which in the future might work with Panther).

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

Microsoft shocked the computing industry when they said they wanted a subscription based OS. Apple is doing exactly that and nobody even
knows it. The features you bought in one OS X version don't work until
you buy the next.

Charging for updates is not some crafty new practce that apple is sneaking
in. None of Windows 95, 98, Millenium, XP were
free updates (and windows 98 SE might have being a paying update too).
OS 9 wasn't a free update, not was 8.5 or 8 or 7.5 or 7.

Software isn't always free. 10.1 was free because it really should have
been 10.0 but apple couldn't afford to let that deadline slip. Each of
10.2 and 10.3 represent about a year of work, which doesn't come cheap.

Fred

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> writes:

Microsoft shocked the computing industry when they said they wanted
a subscription based OS. Apple is doing exactly that and nobody
even knows it. The features you bought in one OS X version don't
work until you buy the next.

First, with MS you *have* to upgrade: your license (under the new
regime) expires after several years and you are no longer legally
entitled to use the software.

Second, with OS X, you can use your copy as long as you like: there
is no requirement to upgrade to newer versions.

Lastly, I should follow my own advice and...

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
=====================================================================

Source:
http://it.geocities.com/roccopapaleo/faq/italiano/asciidontfeed.html




--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <86znjv8j0u.fsf@number6.magda.ca>,
David Magda <dmagda+trace030624@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> writes:

Microsoft shocked the computing industry when they said they wanted
a subscription based OS. Apple is doing exactly that and nobody
even knows it. The features you bought in one OS X version don't
work until you buy the next.

First, with MS you *have* to upgrade: your license (under the new
regime) expires after several years and you are no longer legally
entitled to use the software.

Second, with OS X, you can use your copy as long as you like: there
is no requirement to upgrade to newer versions.

I'm not trolling. I've been using Apples since about 1982. I've even
had them at work as software development systems.

You say I can use my copy of MacOS X as long as I'd like. That's not entirely true. Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

The public's expectations of quality have gone to hell. First we
lowered our expectations by paying money for a buggy product as long as
free fixes came later. Now we're buying buggy products that won't be
fixed.

10.3 has some new features that I really look forward to. The new
development environment looks promising. I just worry how many of those
new features won't work until I pay for 10.4.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

You say I can use my copy of MacOS X as long as I'd like. That's not entirely true. Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

Have you ever used a program of significant size where everything worked?

Just look at GraphicConverter's release notes. I have nothing against GC
in particular, in fact the opposite is true. Unlike many developers, the author includes detailed release notes. Check out how many problems are
fixed with each release.

Jaguar basically works. Certain areas might need a bit more of a helping
hand than others, but that's life.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

Troll.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-25DBAE.14210303072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

.....

I'm not trolling. I've been using Apples since about 1982. I've even
had them at work as software development systems.

But were these MacIntosh or Gala or Cameo or Rome or ....?
Did you peel and core them before using them?

You say I can use my copy of MacOS X as long as I'd like. That's not >entirely true. Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

I can't think of an operating system where this is not true. These
specific problems seem to plague you much more than others, possibly
because you really have an inherent hardware problem.

The public's expectations of quality have gone to hell.

Witness the success of Windows.

First we lowered our expectations by paying money for a buggy product as long as
free fixes came later. Now we're buying buggy products that won't be fixed.

The key to happiness in many areas of life is diminished expectations.
Try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised by respiration. Dazzled by basic
bodily functions.

10.3 has some new features that I really look forward to. The new >development environment looks promising. I just worry how many of those
new features won't work until I pay for 10.4.

You may be a candidate for linux. Then you are free to fix/modify whatever you wish.
And the price is right.

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Nice !

David Magda wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> writes:

Microsoft shocked the computing industry when they said they wanted
a subscription based OS. Apple is doing exactly that and nobody
even knows it. The features you bought in one OS X version don't
work until you buy the next.

First, with MS you *have* to upgrade: your license (under the new
regime) expires after several years and you are no longer legally
entitled to use the software.

Second, with OS X, you can use your copy as long as you like: there
is no requirement to upgrade to newer versions.

Lastly, I should follow my own advice and...

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
=====================================================================

Source:
http://it.geocities.com/roccopapaleo/faq/italiano/asciidontfeed.html

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <be2cof$qo9$1@news.ucar.edu>,
pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article <mcmurtri-25DBAE.14210303072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

.....

I'm not trolling. I've been using Apples since about 1982. I've even
had them at work as software development systems.

But were these MacIntosh or Gala or Cameo or Rome or ....?
Did you peel and core them before using them?

A Quadra 840av, PowerMac 6100, PowerMac 8100av, Mac IIfx, Mac IIci, Mac
LC III, various Centris, various Performas, various Powerbooks, and a
B&W G3. I'm a software developer for MacOS and Java.

You say I can use my copy of MacOS X as long as I'd like. That's not >>entirely true. Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

I can't think of an operating system where this is not true. These
specific problems seem to plague you much more than others, possibly
because you really have an inherent hardware problem.

OS 9.2 may be old but, as far as I've seen, it does everything it claims
to do. Apple is still releasing free bug fixes for OS 9.2. I haven't
had problems with Sun either. Why is it that suddenly OS X versions
become unmaintained before they're complete?

The public's expectations of quality have gone to hell.

Witness the success of Windows.

First we lowered our expectations by paying money for a buggy product as long
as
free fixes came later. Now we're buying buggy products that won't be fixed.

The key to happiness in many areas of life is diminished expectations.
Try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised by respiration. Dazzled by basic >bodily functions.

What if I only wanted to mount the big RAID from pixelmemory.us on my
desktop? It has my photos, my music, and my archives. That would still
cause my desktop to eventually lock up dead after waking from sleep.

10.3 has some new features that I really look forward to. The new >>development environment looks promising. I just worry how many of those >>new features won't work until I pay for 10.4.

You may be a candidate for linux. Then you are free to fix/modify whatever you
wish.
And the price is right.

My personal server, pixelmemory.us, uses OS X patched up with open
source UNIX software. For the specific task of serving it runs nicely.
The same idea won't apply to my G4. Getting open source software to
integrate with Apple's custom flavor of UNIX is very difficult.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

OS 9.2 may be old but, as far as I've seen, it does everything it claims
to do. Apple is still releasing free bug fixes for OS 9.2. I haven't
had problems with Sun either. Why is it that suddenly OS X versions
become unmaintained before they're complete?

The bug fix update to Mac OS 9.2 was in 2001.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system



Kevin McMurtrie wrote:


[...]

I've been doing hardware reboots of this so-called robust operating
system like it was Windows NT4. 10.3 is almost out for sale and it
looks like there's no chance in hell that 10.2 will be fixed to work as advertised. I'm paying for upgrades to get the features I bought one or
two versions ago. It's funny how OS 9 still gets bug fixes.

It does?
I currently work with 9.2.1 quite well, and have avoided 9.2.2 because I
am given to understand it's only useful (for some reason) if you have or
intend to get OS X.
Is/are there other OS 9.x.x bug fixes?

keith whaley
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Keith Whaley <keith_w@dslextreme.com> wrote:

Why is he a troll?

Because he claims to be a Mac developer, yet doesn't comprehend that
OSes are never perfected, and therefore concludes that upgrades prices
are by definition "subscription based OSes."

Riigghhtt.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1fxkd3y.1q1d249txvgowN%gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov>,
Ben Loughran <gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

Because he claims to be a Mac developer, yet doesn't comprehend that
OSes are never perfected, and therefore concludes that upgrades prices
are by definition "subscription based OSes."

I don't think you're correct, here. I think he understands that OSes are
never perfected. On the other hand, it wasn't until OS 10.2 that I could
print to custom paper sizes from my Mac, and I still haven't been able to
get it to work correctly with #9 envelopes. Custom paper sizes strike me
as core functionality that ought to have been in 10.1 at the very very latest.

I'd tend to agree that Apple is screwing some people by bundling necessary fixes to get advertised features to work with new features. I should be
able to get a *fixed* 10.2, without paying to upgrade to 10.3.

-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

David Magda wrote:

First, with MS you *have* to upgrade: your license (under the new
regime) expires after several years and you are no longer legally
entitled to use the software.

that's bull. support ends, not the license to use the software.

with Apple, once 10.2 came out, if you didn't upgrade you could not use any program or version released afterwards, since they all required 10.2. Not exclusively Apple programs, also others. Apple's motivation was to make us
buy the new OS, the other developers were just lazy to test the programs
under both systems.

I'm very confident, once 10.3 is released, you can either freeze the list of software you use, forever, because there'll be no new programs for you to
use, or you'll have to upgrade within a few months if there's just one new programm you'll need.

At least software for Windows usually runs on versions of Windows several
years old, not just one year.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> writes:

I'm not trolling. I've been using Apples since about 1982. I've
even had them at work as software development systems.

ACK.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <1fxkd3y.1q1d249txvgowN%gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov>, Ben
Loughran <gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

Because he claims to be a Mac developer, yet doesn't comprehend that
OSes are never perfected, and therefore concludes that upgrades prices
are by definition "subscription based OSes."

That doesn't make him a troll. I admit he's having some difficulty
making the distinction between "upgrade" and "subscription," and
perhaps he would get further were he to use words more carefully, but
he seems to be interested in a real discussion.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-25DBAE.14210303072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

You say I can use my copy of MacOS X as long as I'd like. That's not entirely true. Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

This is a non-sequitur. The fact that there might be bugs does not prevent
you from using the software for as long as you want.

Paolo

"The best evidence of intelligent life out there
is that none of them have contacted us."
--John Fistere
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <3F04C351.4020101@KaNine_University.edu>,
"Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fun_Fur@KaNine_University.edu> wrote:

Nice !

Does anybody still remember the little program called Email Effects, that
let you create ascii art very easily? Gosh, it is only three years since I
last used it but it feels like an eternity. Heck, most people who are
online now do not even know what ascii art is :-(

Paolo

"The best evidence of intelligent life out there
is that none of them have contacted us."
--John Fistere
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-36672B.19331803072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

A Quadra 840av, PowerMac 6100, PowerMac 8100av, Mac IIfx, Mac IIci, Mac
LC III, various Centris, various Performas, various Powerbooks, and a
B&W G3. I'm a software developer for MacOS and Java.

Hold on a second, if you used them since 1982 you would have mentioned a
Lisa, a Fat Mac, perhaps an SE30... :-)

Paolo

"The best evidence of intelligent life out there
is that none of them have contacted us."
--John Fistere
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <BB2BC2B096686E48D@ts05-006.dublin.indigo.ie>,
pgch@eircom.net (Paolo Cordone) wrote:

In article <mcmurtri-36672B.19331803072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

A Quadra 840av, PowerMac 6100, PowerMac 8100av, Mac IIfx, Mac IIci, Mac
LC III, various Centris, various Performas, various Powerbooks, and a
B&W G3. I'm a software developer for MacOS and Java.

Hold on a second, if you used them since 1982 you would have mentioned a >Lisa, a Fat Mac, perhaps an SE30... :-)

Paolo

"The best evidence of intelligent life out there
is that none of them have contacted us."
--John Fistere

The ones above were work related. I still have a game I wrote in Apple
][ 6502 assembly if you'd like a copy. I wrote the assembler too, but I
can't find it.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <YxbNa.355966$ro6.8608921@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>,
Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

Steven Fisher wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

OS 9.2 may be old but, as far as I've seen, it does everything it
claims to do. Apple is still releasing free bug fixes for OS 9.2. I
haven't had problems with Sun either. Why is it that suddenly OS X
versions become unmaintained before they're complete?

The bug fix update to Mac OS 9.2 was in 2001.

Sorry; insert the word "last" to that.

The drive firmware update patch that just came out was released for OS 9 first.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

The drive firmware update patch that just came out was released for OS 9 first.

DVD firmware is not part of Mac OS.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

David Magda <dmagda+trace030624@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:

First, with MS you *have* to upgrade: your license (under the new
regime) expires after several years and you are no longer legally
entitled to use the software.

When we buy a car, the car is ours to keep no matter what. We don't buy a license to use the car, and then surrender that license if we choose to
buy a different car. Why then, when we buy computer software, we merely
pay for the right to use it rather than for the actual product? It just
doesn't seem logical. I gave money for it. It's in my possession. I can
choose to install it or not. Why can't I outright own it? Also, when we
buy that car we're guaranteed that it'll work like car should or we'll be
given a replacement, usually for free. Why does software always come with
a disclaimer that it's not even guarenteed to do what it's advertised to
do? Would we tolerate this silliness for any other commodity? Why do we tolerate it for computer software? I've asked this question in software
dev newsgroups and have NEVER received an answer.

I have published a book that comes with some software I and a colleague created. The software has a standard EULA from the publisher (I had no say
so in that). When I do the second edition of the book, the software will
come straight from me and not the publisher. The license will explicitly
state that the end user is the owner of that copy of the software and
that's that. The license will further state that the software will perform exactly as documented, provided the user is competent enough to understand
the uses for which the software is designed. What are the ramifications of such a "license"?

JH





--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ben Loughran <gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

Several important features in 10.2 haven't worked since
it was purchased and it appears that Apple will never fix them.

Troll.

I think this is a perfectly valid point. If a certain feature is
documented and supposed to work, then I fully expect it to work BEFORE a
new version of the product is released. I can't understand why Apple, or
any other software developer for that matter, can't (or won't...I'm not
always sure which it is) release a completely bug free version of a
product BEFORE starting on a completely new version. Don't hand me the
line "all software has bugs" because that's only partially true. All
software may have bugs, but all bugs can be fixed.

For the record, I love Apple, Macs, OS X, and I can't point to any
specific feature of Jaguar that is supposed to work but doesn't.

JH

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jonathan Brady <jbrady@removethisspamkiller.myfmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:32:08 -0400, Joe Heafner wrote
(in message <rEKdnWrapscl25uiU-KYvw@ctc.net>):

The license will explicitly state that the end user is the owner of
that copy of the software and that's that.

Well, have your license carefully worded to not allow creation of
copies.

Why should I include a provision for something that I have absolutely no
means of controlling? I'll never know whether copies are made or not.

The license will further state that the software will perform exactly
as documented, provided the user is competent enough to understand
the uses for which the software is designed. What are the
ramifications of such a "license"?

Unless you can specify what kind of environment the user can use this software, you're taking a chance by making such a statement, especially
if you live in the US (very litigious environment).

My software is command line driven, and I usually only provide source code
so it has to be compiled. If they can't do that, then odds are they won't
even bother to try to use it in the first place.

The thing about software is that you can never control what the user installs on their computer that somehow may effect your software. You

Right.

JH

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <3f068124$0$1099$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) wrote:

Microsoft is still issuing security patches for '98, which is just under 5 years old. Apple should be issuing security patches, when appropriate, for 10.1.

although I personally would prefer this myself, I wonder if there is a philosophy behind the way Apple currently handles this stuff (a philosophy aside from capitalism, that is :-) )--i.e., if nothing else, it makes upgrading/bug fixing simple. If something doesn't work right, you get the
next newest version of the OS to (try to) fix it. No need as in the Windows world to track different versions of the OS in parallel and to figure out
what x patch you need for y operating system*. If nothing else, it's less confusing, if more expensive, and I wonder if Apple does this intentionally
in its quest to make things "just work" for minimally technically competent users.

also, I thought that at least security patches are released by Apple for
older operating systems (10.1.x etc.). Could be wrong about that. I seem to remember Software Update popping up on an older system telling me I had to download something for a security fix, even though Jaguar is the most
recent release. Not sure if I am remembering correctly, though.


*although yes, automatic software updates makes this fairly transparent.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <65DNa.14219$Ey6.2313@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
sam grey <sgrey@invalid.com> wrote:

although I personally would prefer this myself, I wonder if there is a >philosophy behind the way Apple currently handles this stuff (a philosophy >aside from capitalism, that is :-) )--i.e., if nothing else, it makes >upgrading/bug fixing simple.

I don't think that's a philosophy. I think that's laziness, and a desire
to get people to upgrade.

Yes, it takes a bit more effort to track three or four versions of the OS.

However, Apple's customers have paid through the nose, not because the hardware's all that great, but because the *OS* is so cool, so they should
get a good deal on that OS.

If something doesn't work right, you get the
next newest version of the OS to (try to) fix it.

Yes. And that's the point at which the various Unixes, from NetBSD to
Solaris, and Windows, beat the Mac - if something doesn't work right, there
is a reasonable expectation they will give you a current update.

No need as in the Windows
world to track different versions of the OS in parallel and to figure out >what x patch you need for y operating system*.

This is never remotely difficult; you look at patches *for your OS* and
see if any are relevant.

*although yes, automatic software updates makes this fairly transparent.

Well, even without those. For BSD/OS, you go to ftp.bsdi.com, and look in pub/bsdi/patches/patches-4.2, and there's the patches for BSD/OS 4.2.

If nothing else, it's less
confusing, if more expensive, and I wonder if Apple does this intentionally >in its quest to make things "just work" for minimally technically competent >users.

There's no confusion with this. At least, none has been observed in any
of the OS's which have been issuing patches for all currently-supported versions, and they've been doing it for years and years.

also, I thought that at least security patches are released by Apple for >older operating systems (10.1.x etc.). Could be wrong about that. I seem to >remember Software Update popping up on an older system telling me I had to >download something for a security fix, even though Jaguar is the most
recent release. Not sure if I am remembering correctly, though.

The standard I'd have would be security patches and crash bugs in Apple software, including the kernel. Probably also major failures of Apple
software to perform as described. So, for instance, I wouldn't have expected them to issue a patch adding custom paper sizes to 10.1, even though I think
it was disgraceful not to provide them from day 1; that's a fundamental feature.

-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ben Loughran <gwbushnospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

Joe Heafner <heafnerj@spam.vnet.net> wrote:

Troll.

I think this is a perfectly valid point.

You're clueless. The fact that there might be bugs does not prevent you
from using the software for as long as you want. It is NOT a subscription-based OS, no matter how much you whine thatit is. Get a
clue, numbnuts.

You obviously can't read because I never said, or thought, that OS X is a subscription-based OS and I resent the namecalling. Nor do I whine. I
suggest you read for content before you label people as trolls.

JH

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

sam grey wrote:

also, I thought that at least security patches are released by Apple for older operating systems (10.1.x etc.). Could be wrong about that. I seem to remember Software Update popping up on an older system telling me I had to download something for a security fix, even though Jaguar is the most
recent release. Not sure if I am remembering correctly, though.

No, you're correct.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Joe Heafner wrote:

The license will explicitly state that the end user is the owner of
that copy of the software and that's that.

With no restrictions on use? Then they have the right to redistribute
your software, make a profit, give it away willy-nilly?

I'll take a copy- or better yet, would you give me the name of someone
who owns your software? I would like to take, rename it and sell it
myself. After all- it is his to do with as he pleases. Outright
ownership- not licensing.

Why should I include a provision for something that I have absolutely no means of controlling? I'll never know whether copies are made or not.

To protect yourself legally. If you don't do such things- then people
will legally abuse you of your intellectual property. Why do people get copyrights if they assume that they will never know whether someone is
making the same product. Why legally protect any property, intellectual
or otherwise?

The license will further state that the software will perform exactly
as documented, provided the user is competent enough to understand
the uses for which the software is designed. What are the
ramifications of such a "license"?

This one is more interesting. You combine an absolute-"exactly" (an
amazing construct in the ever mysterious software world) with a
subjective- "competent enough". Who gets to say who is competent? You?
Do you exactly state what competency is before hand? Is this in the license, are their skills tests before someone buys the software? Are
there limitations on the competency of the coders of the _other_
software on the machine?

My software is command line driven, and I usually only provide source code so it has to be compiled. If they can't do that, then odds are they won't even bother to try to use it in the first place.

Is this done for profit? Are you try to suggest that software companies should distribute software with source code? Should Coke tell us what
is _really_ in there? Should McDonalds? :)

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113