sjs

The problem with Eclipse is that the UI and UX are terrible, so it really doesn't matter what else it is good at.

Unless someone actually likes Eclipse or is already very familiar with it I cannot recommend it over IntelliJ.

Well, get writing your own post and then submit it to HN. </cheeky>

Why not type * instead of ./* in the first place? Sidestep the whole issue by eliminating redundant information.

He's doing better than your bank teller. Lots of jobs pay less than 55k, even in New York.

If you are rude or demanding you will be treated accordingly, and this post has a very demanding tone. Maybe I'm cold but I don't think being disabled is a pass to treat other people in a condescending or rude manner. It sounds like a frustrating ordeal and I am sympathetic but can't help but think the other side of this story may be different.

You only need a credit check if you are getting a phone on a contract. Perhaps the carrier you want a contract with has some policy about credit checks or driver's licenses. Did you try going through the carrier directly?

It sounds like you've given up or are at least very soured at this point (I don't blame you) but it might be worth cooling down and trying again via the carrier. Here in Canada you can get a credit check done with an existing credit card number and your SIN (social insurance #). Politely suggesting, to Apple or a carrier, that a credit card and SSN should be enough for a credit check could be worth a shot.

Fair enough, just providing some context.

A playbook is a book of strategies used by sports coaches. Typically in US football.

Interesting character. You can copy & paste it in front of any text in an editable field and the text immediately flips.

They contracted someone to build the thing in the first place. Whoever is there for the data centre will be renting or buying a place to live, or at least staying at hotels, shopping for food and going to restaurants.

It may not solve all of the town's problems but it probably does not do any harm either.

So does email. Email will be around in 5-10 years and is not tied to a company. Who knows what will happen to Twitter.

I think that idealistically we agree, and it also seems like we agree on a practical level. We may be in a semantic death spiral, but I'm leaving my long reply here as well since I already wrote it.

--

Ok I see what you mean about thinking that the GPL is restrictive is selfish. I don't think it's necessarily bad to be selfish sometimes. Everyone has to earn a living and wanting to do so is inherently selfish. It's difficult to earn a living off selling and supporting open source software. Sure RedHat does it, and Cygnus does it. There are far more failures though. It seems that the best way to create open source software for a living is to work for a big company that sponsors a project such as Linux, LLVM, or something like that. The rest of us sell proprietary software and services and until you have a lot of momentum I don't think it's wise to open source everything. Releasing your project under the GPL or AGPL from day one is scary for most people. Selfish? Absolutely. Necessarily bad? Not in my opinion.

> Yeah, you are restricted--You are not allowed to compile up the source to your legitimately purchased Photoshop. I fully understand that you don't care (and I don't either [well, until there's a stupid bug]), but to say that you're not restricted is to, I think, misunderstand the situation.

It depends on your point of view. There's the point of view that RMS has: we have all been duped by big corporations. We're captives, and just because we like our prison and can't see the fences doesn't mean we are not restricted. This is the "captive" definition of restrict.

Another definition of restrict is to limit someone's movement or actions, as in "restrict someone to", or "restrict something to". Is one really limited if they don't care about those limits? I think this is where it's easy to get bogged down in semantics and philosophy.

Nation states limit and restrict us in many ways. Is that necessarily bad? Technically we are restricted, but is it useful to try and convince everyone that we've all been duped and anarchy is the true way to bee free? What if you just live in a country that is "free enough" and allows you to do what you want to do, without feeling restricted? If I'm thinking idealistically then yes a state of anarchy where everyone behaves in a cooperative and cordial manner sounds like bliss. But unfortunately that just doesn't work in real life.

Oh, it is older than I thought. Wikipedia says version 0.15 was released in 1996.

Either way "bz" stands for Big Zipped and is unrelated to bzip2.

Before it was the Big Zipped Image it was the Zipped Image, zImage or vmlinuz. Google has results as far back as 2001 or 2002 for vmlinuz so it's safe to say the tradition predates bzip2.

It's worth noting that Linux can in fact use bzip2 today, and the resulting image is still typically called bzImage.

Some people can't be helped. In such extreme cases with incredibly unreasonable and unknowledgeable people just don't upgrade their browser. Let them languish.

On the other hand it could be a benefit to be removed from the duty of maintaing their computer, so maybe pissing them off is a (selfish) win.

Was anyone harmed? ... I'm joking of course. So they were frustrated for a second and then you showed them how to get the menu bar and everything was ok, right? Why was there a lot of angst, and why was it unsafe?

Did you read it?

> The Atlantic advises a conservative approach: don't switch to a different browser, just give them the latest version of the browser they're already using. Be on hand for the first time or two they use the browser, just in case they notice the change and have questions.

Here in Canada I can't use Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, or Amazon's thing without jumping through hoops and proxies, and I'm just too old and lazy for such shenanigans now.

Grooveshark has me as a customer for life whether the labels want want to play nice with them or not. The only alternatives we have are Rdio, Slacker, and maybe a couple of others. None of them are nearly as good as Grooveshark. Grooveshark's biggest drawback is having to jailbreak to get their iOS app, and that's not something they have control over. Major points to them for developing it anyway for a smaller jailbreak audience.

Agree to disagree then. The alternative to Windows and OS X is not GPL-licensed Windows and GPL-licensed OS X, it's no Windows and no OS X, and we still have BSDs, Linux, and other open source systems in the ecosystem.

Nobody who wants an open source OS has been restricted, and those who want a different experience than open source provides have the freedom to choose a proprietary OS. If someone wants an open source Windows or OS X they can make one[1][2]. They are not restricted.

In the real world where not everyone is a programmer people don't feel restricted by proprietary software. Only in some hypothetical ivory tower manned by RMS are non-developers restricted by proprietary things.

[1] http://etoileos.com/ [2] http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

I'm equally baffled when people can't accept a world where there is more than one type of license and software. Open source has its place in kernels, dev tools (editors, compilers, etc), education, and so on. That does not mean it's unequivocally the best and only model for all software in the world. I felt empowered after switching from Linux to OS X and I'm a developer, because I'd rather not hack on my OS to make it usable. I'd rather hack on the cool stuff that I want to hack on. I'd rather just use iPhoto than try to make F-spot, or whatever the photo app of the day on Linux is, not crash when importing photos, or upload to my online gallery, or usable for day to day use. I'd rather just use Billings than try to build my own open source version from scratch, presumably while still trying to pay the bills with other work. I'd rather just use Acorn than wait for GIMP to be usable by version 3.2 in 2020. And so on.

I still use open source software too. Emacs, iTerm2, v8, Firefox, WebKit, Ruby, GCC, LLVM, and many small projects. And contribute to other smaller projects that I'm actually capable of understanding and contributing to such as node, GitX, and many libraries around the net. I open source tools that I make that I think others might find useful, and if someone takes my MIT licensed tool and uses it in a proprietary thing I think it's great that my code was able to help someone else. I don't selfishly demand that they contribute everything they add back to me if they don't want to. My code helped someone accomplish their goal faster or better and that makes me happy.

If you don't understand that's fine, but I am absolutely not restricted by the proprietary software that I choose to use. I won't even call you narrow or selfish for not understanding.

edit: While writing that list of open source software I use, I realized that only Emacs and GCC are GPL. Why is it that the most popular open source software is not GPL licensed? If the GPL encourages and fosters collaboration why is the MIT, BSD, and MPL licensed software more active and popular? It almost seems as if removing the restrictions from the GPL encourages collaboration. The Linux kernel is a notable exception, so I'm not saying this is 100% true, but the evidence seems to support it in many cases.

(That was mostly incomprehensible, but I'll respond anyway...)

You're making the faulty assumption of thinking that someone who wants some source code that is only available under the GPL will just use it and decide to license their work under the GPL as well.

Every time I need some code for a proprietary product I'm working on I pass up GPL and AGPL code. If there's no MIT or BSD licensed code that does what I need then I will write it myself. This happens frequently. Sometimes I share the source (MIT or BSD licensed), sometimes not. If I use MIT or BSD licensed code I contribute back. Not everyone does but enough people do, and those who do contribute are happy knowing that their code may be even more useful to more people because it is not encumbered by the GPL.

So somebody who is making a proprietary thing is not restricting anyone by using an MIT or BSD licensed component. They are making a proprietary thing and the only alternative isn't to make a GPL thing. Another alternative is to make something else, or make nothing at all. No matter what they do in no way is anyone restricted from taking the MIT/BSD component and doing whatever they please with it. They are not restricted by the proprietary thing.

The GPL has its place, it's just not universally good the way RMS would have us all think.

> they can do whatever they want with the software

What if they want to build something on top of it that is not open source? They cannot and that is a restriction. It is the definition of a restriction.

> When someone closes the source, it's restricting others freedom, not his.

How so? No one is restricted if somebody makes a private fork of a codebase.

That's like saying that if I don't go to the bar down the street tonight the people there are restricted from having fun.

Is our thing complaining about the popular things from the lesser travelled discussion forums? Snickering about how the masses don't know Facebook from the web from the Internet. "The fools!"

That's obviously tongue in cheek but there's some truth to it. At the end of the day does it really matter if people are happy using the one thing on their computer that they can actually use and understand?

What? Why not? iCab, Opera mobile, Opera mini, and dozen other browsers have already existed in the App Store for a while now. There's no rule against shipping a browser that uses UIWebView.

(There was some fuss around Opera mini because it doesn't use WebKit but it was eventually approved as it doesn't render HTML directly, it's like Amazon's Silk.)

You might want to take a look at iCab.

"People that love software want to build their own hardware." -- Alan Kay, paraphrased by Steve Jobs on at least one occasion

Apple is a product company, and their products consist of hardware and software.

The good shops still have at least a few demo units, and if not you can ask someone who works there to bring out a real device to try out.

I'm not saying that's a good way to do it but it is at least possible to try them out, if you're determined. For the casual buyer having to ask to try it out is a barrier, and for those just looking it's probably a deterrent.

I had to use this 'zap' bookmarklet[1] on it. It was way too distracting.

[1] https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html

I frequent HN, Reddit, Twitter, etc. and have heard the name Hunch once or twice, but have no idea what they do and don't know anyone who uses it.

There's a different kind of bubble in the valley, it's a contained ecosystem that people get caught up in. Similar to the social bubble surrounding a college or church. People inside the bubble often cannot see the forest from the trees.

In the bubble it's easy to get to know all the trees, but from the outside it's just a forest and few trees are easily recognized or stand out from the others at all.

Joanna looked like she was about to lose it when he interrupted her, but she let him continue. Even she seemed to know when arguing with Jobs was pointless.

"Hey guys check out these sweet Ubuntu commands!" ;-)

Is this only in zsh? I've been recommending this and not marking it explicitly as a zsh thing.

alt-. works too. In the shell ESC <foo> is the same as alt-<foo>. The difference being that with alt-<foo> you hold alt and press <foo>, then release them both. with ESC <foo> you press escape, release, and then press and release <foo>.