ABernardoJr
Apr 8, 12:39 AM
When you are as HUGE as best buy, and you are selling a product as huge as the iPad, it makes sense to create a demand. People do this all the time. You can't get it now, so the second it becomes available to you, you buy it in fear that you might have to wait another month. This happens all the time with a lot of products.
How does that create demand? Instead of actually getting the sale, you deny a sale and hope it "creates demand" so that they'll come back and buy it in fear? Especially considering that they could have just purchased it in the first place and avoided the whole issue. Actually selling out the product and then having no more available in stock would create demand AND generate revenue. Doing what they did would generate SOME revenue and likely cause customers to look elsewhere for iPads.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
How does that create demand? Instead of actually getting the sale, you deny a sale and hope it "creates demand" so that they'll come back and buy it in fear? Especially considering that they could have just purchased it in the first place and avoided the whole issue. Actually selling out the product and then having no more available in stock would create demand AND generate revenue. Doing what they did would generate SOME revenue and likely cause customers to look elsewhere for iPads.
Edit: This isn't to say that I don't recognize the concept of reaching quotas for the day and saving products for the next day's quota. That's a different argument. What I'm referring to is that this is likely not about demand but about selfishly wanting to meet quotas and turning away customers in the process. Not creating demand. It's immoral, but business/retail and morality don't always work so well together.
Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 04:31 PM
If There's No BTO Option For A Single-processor 2.66 Configuration, That Will Be Frustrating™.
Ahheck01
Apr 12, 05:00 PM
BTW, apparently this site is doing live blogging:
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
And for you english-only forum members, here's the translated version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl&ei=rsmkTfiKLsL-rAHd44WGCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divns
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
And for you english-only forum members, here's the translated version:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl&ei=rsmkTfiKLsL-rAHd44WGCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26prmd%3Divns
fivepoint
Mar 23, 02:20 PM
Again, Fivepoint, you forget that the President was selling the Iraq war with suspicious and weak information that the many questioned. It turns out they were right. Pre-war, the big issue was whether the war was justified based on the evidence being pushed by the President. The criticism President Bush faced thereafter had a lot to do with the fact that he lied to the American people in order to start a poorly planned war. They bungled every aspect of a war they lied to get us into. There were plenty of reasons to be critical.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
Yes, there were many reasons to be critical.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
Out of curiousity, what do you expect? I expect conservative congressmen and women to support a conservative president, but to think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. I don't respect blind support like what they did under GWB. Similarly, I expect liberal congressmen and women to support a liberal president, but to also think for themselves, and do what they independently think is right. Some are speaking out, and some are not blindly supporting President Obama. Can you acknowledge that the liberals are doing a better job with consistency than the GOP? If not, how do you explain GOP opposition to the Libya action?
Part of what you say is true, in that I should EXPECT people to be more critical of the other side. This is true. But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. What I personally expect is people to stand on principles, and not on parties. What I expect is that people live their lives in a honorable way and present a consistent philosophy. This is the same reason I rip on neo-con Republicans for talking about fiscal conservatism when history has shown us that their real world actions when in power are very different from their rhetoric... even if they still aren't as bad as the Democrats... it's not good enough. Both parties are bad at it, too many people simply tow the party line and don't think for themselves.
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
If you are supporting non-intervention, than I disagree. I support the notion that the UN (using member-nations' pooled military or civilian assets) should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions.
Being a 'non-interventionist' does not mean that you NEVER support war, it means that you avoid it whenever possible. It means that you are far less prone to military intervention than someone who does not care about the values of non-interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 27, 09:48 AM
Yes, people have every right to complain when they receive faulty products, particularly so when they're paying good money, as they do when buying Apple. But whether Apple's QC has suffered significantly as they try to keep costs down due to the market pressures of increasingly feasible like-with-like comparisons with PCs, as well as meeting an increasing consumer demand, is debatable? Though there certainly seems to be a worrying increase in complaints about the new Intel Macs, I wonder how much of that is down to perception as more people use the internet as a channel to vent their complaints? Regarding the new Intel Macs, the jury here is still very much out (& will remain so for at least another 6 months). Not least because...
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
Thanks mate, of course I vent my disappointment regarding the overall quality issues. In any case, it should not be luck to catch a good piece of hardware from a company like APPLE, right? It seems as if the hardware quality has in general decreased, I suspect partly because of the place where this hardware is now manufactured... CHINA. I have my own experience on a corporate level with a large mobile phone manufacturer...
I found that there is a general lack of understanding what quality should be, and especially how long it should last:rolleyes:
CIAO
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
Thanks mate, of course I vent my disappointment regarding the overall quality issues. In any case, it should not be luck to catch a good piece of hardware from a company like APPLE, right? It seems as if the hardware quality has in general decreased, I suspect partly because of the place where this hardware is now manufactured... CHINA. I have my own experience on a corporate level with a large mobile phone manufacturer...
I found that there is a general lack of understanding what quality should be, and especially how long it should last:rolleyes:
CIAO
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
soldierblue
Apr 20, 02:51 PM
Apple filed similar suits again HTC and Nokia last spring. You'll notice that the ITC is not favoring Apple's claims.
nvjusme
Jun 14, 08:31 PM
Radio Shack employees are clueless and have very little information about the Iphone 4 preorder. It looks like they are only taking names and they'll call you when they get them, whenever that is.
carmenodie
Mar 22, 01:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
goobot
Apr 11, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I dont want to wait :(
I dont want to wait :(
mrwonkers
Apr 6, 10:31 AM
No Real web designer uses iWeb...
Tried it for 5 minutes until i realised how closed up it is, ie no code view.
Not that i really need any graphic program anyway. TextWrangler and Notepad++ FTW!
Its not made for real web designers, its made for MILFs and Soccer Moms who just wanna wack a site 2getha...
Tried it for 5 minutes until i realised how closed up it is, ie no code view.
Not that i really need any graphic program anyway. TextWrangler and Notepad++ FTW!
Its not made for real web designers, its made for MILFs and Soccer Moms who just wanna wack a site 2getha...
milo
Jul 20, 10:12 AM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
No way. It would be stupid for a web surfing machine. But for people who need the power, they're going to absolutely notice when it does things TWICE as fast. I say bring it on (and I'm running a quad and see a *huge* difference).
No way. It would be stupid for a web surfing machine. But for people who need the power, they're going to absolutely notice when it does things TWICE as fast. I say bring it on (and I'm running a quad and see a *huge* difference).
Spagolli94
Nov 28, 10:51 PM
I was just reading some of the Zune comments on Amazon. Wow. Sounds like a really GREEEEAAAAT product.
leekohler
Mar 3, 12:04 PM
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
Fair enough. Now let's move along. ;)
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
Fair enough. Now let's move along. ;)
MrCrowbar
Aug 27, 10:03 AM
This is what we NEED:
1. Computer with no fan. Quiet. Silent. CRITICAL.
2. Modular computer to add a gorgeous Apple Cinema Display.
3. At lesat two FireWire 800 ports.
Then all the rest (power, etc).
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
1. Computer with no fan. Quiet. Silent. CRITICAL.
2. Modular computer to add a gorgeous Apple Cinema Display.
3. At lesat two FireWire 800 ports.
Then all the rest (power, etc).
1. My iMac Core Duo 17" was very quiet. Never heard the fans except using photoshop under rosetta, playing 3D games under XP and during the hardware test. Those fans are powerful when required, make noise like a big hair dryer and you think the computer's gonna lift off and fly away. But on normal use all you hear is the hard drive. I had a desk that happened to resonnate at the frequency of the hard drive which was horrible, but when put on the corner of the desk it was fine. You could crack it open and replace the noisy Maxtor drive with a Seagate Barracuda if you want the absolute silent computer.
2. I hooked up a 20" Dell Screen to the iMac. Worked nicely. the iMac supports up to 23" in dual screen mode.
3. Only has a Firewire 400 Port. You won't get dual 800 on iMac... get a Mac Pro. You could put it in another room, make a hole in the wall for the screen cable and firewire cables and use wireless keyboards and mouses. ;)
mcrain
Mar 22, 10:09 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable...
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
daneoni
Aug 27, 03:38 PM
One reason Apple switched to Intel was because they couldn't get a G5 in a notebook, they kept saying they would do this for ages so a joke that powerbook G5's coming out Tuesday emerged. This *hilarious* joke has come back for an encore now we are all Intel chips which are quicker than the G5, especially as no-one knows exactly which Tuesday (28th August / 5th September / 12th September) the Merom MB/MBP will arrive.
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
It isn't the G5 part that's funny about it. The whole point of the joke is to make fun of the Rumor Article --> Wild Speculation --> Guessing the Specific Release Date cycle.
Finally people who grasp it
ConnorTurnbull
Apr 25, 01:37 PM
They cant lose this surely?
Even Android stores your location in the exact same way iOS does.
What are you talking about? This is Apple. When they do something wrong, it's ten times worse than if one of their competitors had done it!
Even Android stores your location in the exact same way iOS does.
What are you talking about? This is Apple. When they do something wrong, it's ten times worse than if one of their competitors had done it!
Slix
Apr 6, 03:45 PM
Never heard anyone say "I want a Xoom!" :rolleyes:
Kranchammer
Apr 6, 04:43 PM
You both ignored HOT DOGS! Sheesh, hot dogs rule. The only problem is kids under 6 choking on them unless you cut them right. But that will be fixed in the v3.0 hot dog, they will come pre-sliced.
GTFO. :mad:
Or are you counting on the deal with that swedish sausage company to save hot dogs from doooom?
The race to the bottom continues...
GTFO. :mad:
Or are you counting on the deal with that swedish sausage company to save hot dogs from doooom?
The race to the bottom continues...
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
skunk
Apr 28, 01:16 PM
I ask you whether Rockwell Blake would be a competent President of the United States. You reply, "I have no idea. Who's Rockwell Blake?" You don't believe that he would be a competent President of the United States. You don't doubt that he would do that. You haven't formed any opinion about whether he would be a competent one.However, in your case, as opposed to your fictional version, you have formed an opinion.
~Shard~
Aug 25, 03:07 PM
You're missing a comma. :p :D
Am I, where, exactly? :p ;)
Am I, where, exactly? :p ;)
63dot
Aug 18, 09:26 AM
i'm in
we can start today
you take everything east of kansas and i will take the western region of the usa
when we have enough money, i can go raid asia and australia/new zealand for old G5s and you can go after europe and the middle east
when we are done we will be rich and could sit on the same oil board as bin laden, dick cheney, and several of the bush family members
and based on who is taller, one of us could be dr. evil and the other one will be mini me
sound good?
we can start today
you take everything east of kansas and i will take the western region of the usa
when we have enough money, i can go raid asia and australia/new zealand for old G5s and you can go after europe and the middle east
when we are done we will be rich and could sit on the same oil board as bin laden, dick cheney, and several of the bush family members
and based on who is taller, one of us could be dr. evil and the other one will be mini me
sound good?
