r0k
Apr 12, 01:47 PM
1) Is there any better mac software equivalent to the one i listed that i use daily?
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
2) Is the mac command line a full unix one, with same commands, etc? As i said i'm used to linux command line from managing my web servers, and if i can write shell scripts in mac, it could save me good time.
Thanks for this nice thread that was very informative about the main differences/issues i'll find when switching over to Mac.
If you felt confortable with Linux and its command line, Mac OS X should be no real change for you. Its command line interface is no different. If I remember right, Mac OS X's standard Shell is in bash, but you can change it to the many other popular shells that are used with Unix and linux and even install your own.
Once you are using the shell program in OS X, you will find the not much has changed UNIX wise but remember that OS X is based on BSD and not linux so I guess there are some small (very small) differences.
I agree completely. I went from Windows to Linux to OS X. Well not quite... I went from
Windows
to
Windows + Linux
to
Windows + Linux + OS X
to
OS X + Linux.*
(* with windows banished from the home network and only used on the stone knives and bearskins issued to (inflicted upon) me by my employer)
During this time I found Linux and OS X to be similar and I don't bother thinking about switching from bash to csh or sh. I'm happy with bash. If I want to run a shell script, it always begins with #!/bin/sh so all the sh dependent shell scripts I've gotten used to, written and rewritten over the years work just fine.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:23 PM
You do realize that we live in a capitalist culture right, one of the greatest consumerist cultures to have ever existed on this planet. Do you honestly believe that purchased content, free of commercials, is going to work? It was all fine and dandy when it was Apple stopping file sharing but when it's Apple honing in on the terrain of a multi-billion dollar advertising system, they're going to face significantly more resistance. And that's why cable and satellite television aren't going away anytime soon. Either that, or you can expect to see commerials coming to your iTunes downloads in the future.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Actually as a media advertising agency owner I can tell you that you've got it backwards. Cable and Satellite are all planning to go to a totally on-demand solution much like iTunes. Commercials and advertising will evolve, through viral marketing and embedded content, as it always has. The days of linear programming cut up with ads are nearing their end.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
archipellago
May 2, 04:07 PM
by default and design, Windows has been more secure than OSX for years now...Google it...!
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
Apple has no clue on security, never has had....
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
A good (russian/chinese) coder can infect as many Windows machines in a week as Apple sell Macs in a year!!!
Wait for the first real iOS bust, it's coming...... so much money out there to hackers to make it work.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Blue Velvet
Mar 25, 03:32 PM
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple�s relationship.
http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509
When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage �like you get at city hall,� Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
ct2k7
Oct 7, 03:27 PM
What are you guys talking about?
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss.
kate middleton weight loss.
ark pictures weightloss
Kate+middleton+weight+loss
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss
Didn't Adobe just show a new Flash IDE that generates native iPhone Apps ?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 08:00 PM
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
There is absolutely no need to be insulting. Quote your "studies", first of all, but I find your assertion pretty bizarre as originally stated - mostly because Death Valley is almost entirely subsumed within Death Valley National Park. Unless you something we don't know, there is zero chance that you are going to be installing a 100 square mile solar array in the park. Not to mention the mountainous topography.
Solar panels are a useful supplement to other power sources in certain regions where favorable environmental conditions exist. But no more than that I'm afraid. In fact, it is obvious to me that there is no direct replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear energy - replacing them will require both 1) an increase in global energy efficiency in order to reduce power demands, and 2) aggressive implementation of wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar sources, among others. No single magical technology improvement is going to come along to alleviate our energy crisis.
Finally, there is tremendous social, political, and economic pressure to continue using fossil fuels and nuclear energy rather than the alternatives. Even though alternatives are now more prevalent than before and enjoy increasing popularity, fossil fuel and nuclear energy are going to be used heavily until all the fuel is exhausted.
archipellago
May 2, 04:37 PM
I think the reality is in front of us. There's no need to google it.
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
sorry what was that....?
I coudn't hear you through all that sand, could you lift it up higher, say just above ground level..?
thanks..
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
For those saying this is an anti-bullying video, I think you're kind of missing the point. No one believes bullying is magically going to go away. This video was more focused on reaching out to the victims of bullying and encouraging them to access social networks that can help them cope and it attempted to put this time in a young person's life in perspective. It encouraged them to continue on and realise things 'get better'. No one is trying to end bullying, however nice that would be.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 23, 06:17 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here? We got sidetracked by a few people making generalizations about atheists but not adding much substance.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 11:32 AM
Anyone hear of Apple going the opposite direction with the Xeon.
i.e. how about a single dual-core?To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 coresSingle Dual Core is out of the question. We're way past wanting-needing less than 4-cores. Xeon are made to be used in pairs. What you probably mean is discussed above - a single 4-core Kentsfield processor (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3014347&postcount=239) in a Conroe motherboard. Some of us hope that will be a sub $2k offering next year.
More like:
4 cores 2006
8 cores 2007
16 cores 2008
32 cores 2009
64 cores 2010
i.e. how about a single dual-core?To be more clear...
Mac Pro with 1 dualcore Xeon?
A whole line of Mac Pro's then
2 cores
4 cores
8 coresSingle Dual Core is out of the question. We're way past wanting-needing less than 4-cores. Xeon are made to be used in pairs. What you probably mean is discussed above - a single 4-core Kentsfield processor (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3014347&postcount=239) in a Conroe motherboard. Some of us hope that will be a sub $2k offering next year.
More like:
4 cores 2006
8 cores 2007
16 cores 2008
32 cores 2009
64 cores 2010
kingtj
Sep 26, 11:23 AM
I think he was probably just trying to say the same thing I've been saying about my new Mac Pro too. The OS and apps need to do some catching-up so we can fully utilize what we paid for!
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Right now, the hardware is *way* ahead of the software in most respects. (We're still waiting another year for major apps like MS Office and Adobe Photoshop to go universal binary - much less see them coded for optimal use of a 4 or 8-core machine!)
You could argue that "I should have just bought an iMac." I suppose, but show me an iMac with a graphics card like the ATI X1900XT 512MB in it, or the ability to hold multiple internal hard drives. These are features I expect from any desktop system I use as my primary computer. I also already owned a perfectly good Dell 24" LCD panel, so didn't really want to buy a machine with the display built-in.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
cdembek
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong.
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
toddybody
Apr 21, 08:41 AM
So why are you here? :confused:
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss
Reacent Post
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 09:55 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 09:34 AM
Anyone know the current price of each 2.66GHz Woodcrest? I just got up and am too lazy to Google yet.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
At $851 seems like the 2.33GHz Clovertown is not all thaat expensive.
Thanks Umbongo.
Woodcrest:
* Xeon DP 5150: 2.66 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $690
* Xeon DP 5160: 3.00 GHz, FSB1333, 4 MB L2 cache, $851
Clovertown:
X5355 2.66GHz 1333MHz 8MB $1172
E5345 2.33GHz 1333MHz 8MB $851
Wow only $161 more than the 2.66GHz Woodcrests for each 2.33GHz Clovertown or the same price as the current 3GHz Woodcrest. Man that looks like the Dual Clovertown will only cost no more the current $3.3k 3GHz Woodcrest - maybe even a little less if Apple wants to get aggressive with like $2999. That's $700-$1k less than I was expecting. Fantastic!
So for +$642 you would gain 2.66GHz in power or one more processor's worth of crunchability. :p
Now I'm getting seriously excited. Bring 'em on!
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Sydde
Mar 11, 11:50 PM
Radiation leaks? In Japan? I hope they have someone keeping an eye out for really, really large reptiles
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
sdunlapa
Oct 7, 09:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
Wait a minute, windows mobile is on multiple phones. Why won't they take over iPhone's market share? Everything is always so pie in the sky. I remember when the iPhone was supposed to be a disaster and a sure failure. Something sure went wrong there.
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:13 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
P-Worm
P-Worm
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
Your profile name/avatar/signature shows how unbias you are...shame on these crazy Android users who can't see the merit of a different OS :rolleyes:
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
People with selfish views harm ALL other people and the planet. By contrast, people with selfless views only harm those with selfish views. Thus, the fewer are the selfish, the better the world will become for the majority of the people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment