Oh give me a break, Apple products are nowhere near perfection. They do plenty right, but plenty of their stuff is awful (just like every other company out there). Finder is awful. The calendar and notes app are awful. One of the ugliest things about Apple is the constant insistence by users that everything Apple does is perfection.
I didn't say they're perfect or anywhere near perfection. I could go on at length about the myriad things that annoy me: Finder, HFS, software update crammed in the App Store, iOS lockdown.
All I did say is that they absolutely do _care_ about what's below the surface. Parts that a fraction of a fraction of folks will ever see are given loving attention far beyond the norm. Do most or any other manufacturers color coordinate battery warning labels, PCBs, etc., down to the cm^2 headphone jack?
But … it took 5+ years not to freeze the UI if the network dropped a packet and lookupd ran out of threads. This was much worse if you used a network authentication service like LDAP – I submitted the same libldap client patches which I sent upstream to the OSS devs (http://chris.improbable.org/2008/03/15/borrowing-from-the-fu...) – but this and NFS client kernel deadlocks and other problems (they accidentally broke Unix permissions for a few releases in the 10.4 days) were generally either ignored or answered with something like “How many Macs does this problem prevent you from buying?” (NOT a joke).
iOS's WiFi still hasn't fixed the basic usability bugs I reported against 1.0 (simple things like “Don't capture the UI until the hotspot page has actually loaded” or “Don't nag me asking to reconnect to a marginal network I already requested you connect to”).
iOS autocomplete remains an embarrassment, frequently turning correct words into nonsense or failing to handle minor inconsistencies in input which didn't produce a valid word.
iOS backups don't backup the stuff you care about like passwords or settings but do backup things you can trivially re-download from the store like apps. This is not in any way documented and the backup status will simply claim the backup was successful without mentioning that it includes almost nothing important.
FileVault had data-loss bugs for multiple releases until v2 was released. Time Machine still doesn't check data integrity and the remaining users complain about weird UI bugs, performance impact, hangs & data loss, etc. Nobody at Apple appears to care.
iCloud sync is a disaster with uncontrollable delays and hangs (e.g. http://createlivelove.com/246). There's no sign of anyone at Apple caring since it hasn't impacted iPhone/iPad sales.
To reiterate: Apple doesn't obsess about quality unless it's needed to get people to buy the device.
It chronicles competing standards, proprietary efforts, attempts at sea-rail-road integration, with some lively characters thrown in. It captures the entrepreneurial vibe of the heady postwar decades. I loved it.
Indeed, it'll teach you a lot about how the recent "modern" world developed; containers became important for the Vietnam War, but its mostly pure business and economic history, with sufficient detail---well, enough for me---on the technical side. Also the interplay of government laws and regulation, and shipping cartels, on the path this all took. And tells you why most of the historic ports of old faded away.
Indeed there is no indigenous population and hasn't been since 1966 [1]. It's nothing but a strategically well-placed airbase with a few thousand personal and contractors.
.io is clearly a gccTLD. The TLD administration and commissioner in charge of 'the government' reside in the UK.
The obvious answer is to use progressive fines, making them proportional rather than a fixed amount. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Beats me. Apple complied with a sloppy judgment. I'm no great fan of Apple in this, but the appeal judges fucked up by not clearly specifying what Apple needed to do and could not do.
The courts don't work like this, largely because it's a waste of the court's time to figure out every single way some slimy bastard could try and weasel out of their rulings. This is pretty clear-cut too - the court ordered Apple to post a notice saying that Samsung's products had been found not to infringe, and Apple decided to instead post one that argued the court had got it wrong and Samsung were a bunch of evil copycats, which also misrepresented court rulings in other juristictions to make them seem more favourable to Apple in the process.
The judgement specified where, when, and how to publish the notice down to which website and publications, the typeface, and point size.
It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
Apple complied with the letter of the judgment and arguably the spirit of the judgment which was "not designed to punish" but rather "to dispel commercial uncertainty". It clearly states that Samsung's products were found not to infringe in England and Wales. Unambiguously. Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
Going on to provide nuance by quoting the original judge and including rulings from other jurisdictions doesn't negate that.
Apple have been foolish in getting the court's dander up, but they're not wrong.
> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
The judgement included a proposed wording with the introduction "Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following". Apple might think that gives them carte blanche to write what they think, but I can guarantee you that no British lawyer would think a wording like that means anything than that they should thread _very_ carefully if deviating from it without consent from the court and/or private agreement with the other party.
> Can anyone parse that first paragraph in any other way?
No, but we can read the rest of the text where they tried to confuse the matter again by misrepresenting rulings from other courts. E.g. the German court did not find infringing copying. The US jury explicitly found the Galaxy Tab (which is what the UK court case and the notice is about) non-infringing.
It clearly and blatantly has a purpose that is at odds with the spirit of the judgement.
You're right, I just re-read the judgment with the proposed wording. Apple should have gone with that verbatim and otherwise shut up so as to not drag it out.
They made what could have been a publicly boring notice buried in the page footer a spectacle.
> It was sloppy to do all that and then not either properly parameterise what should be published or include a requirement that the copy be agreed or reviewed before publication.
No, it was pretty clear what message Apple were supposed to give, and that's a good enough ruling.
> "Billy, don't take cookies from the jar."
< munch munch "I didn't take them, they fell out when I held the jar upside down."
> "Don't touch the jar, then."
< munch munch "I did't touch the jar, I used a spoon."
> "Stay 5 meters away from the jar at all times."
< munch munch "I did stay away! I just convinced my brother to get them for me."
Et cetera. With lawyers involved, this kind of process can go on indefinitely. At some point, you have to stop adjusting the rules and call them out on obvious disobedience.
Sorry, but no, they didn't.
The judge didn't fuck up. The court was quite specific in it's order, as someone quoted below:
"Subject to anything that may be submitted by either side I would propose the following:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given].
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.
In the result I would dismiss both appeals but vary the publicity order as indicated or in such other way as may be agreed or settled by further argument. I would hope that any such argument (and any other consequential) arguments can be resolved by written submissions"
I never got on well with either. Puppet was mind-bogglingly slow (even locally without a master), both Chef and Puppet felt overwrought, and I prefer keeping dependencies to a minimum.
Just a pointer for anyone else that doesn't have much love for either: I found myself happy and productive with Salt. Fast, simple, and lets me do what I needed with less Byzantine setup: http://docs.saltstack.org/en/latest/
There's also Salty Vagrant and Salt Cloud for local and remote provisioning.
The job of an OS not a human admin. "apt-get install puppet" on the clients and "apt-get install puppetmaster" on the puppetmaster. That's about it.
"Puppet was mind-bogglingly slow"
Was it a pause exactly equal to one DNS lookup timeout? The SSL inside puppet used to get all wound up about reverse DNS matching the forward or whatever exactly. You need working DNS to puppet. If DNS is dead you may as well forget debugging puppet until your local DNS is healthy.
Also its possible to do unusual SSL configurations that can make it a bit slow. Vanilla out of the box should be reasonably fast. Starving a virtual image of CPU can make the SSL slow... a virtual 40 MHZ 386 equivalent is not going to do SSL any faster than a physical 40 MHZ 386 used to.
"The job of an OS not a human admin. "apt-get install puppet" on the clients and "apt-get install puppetmaster" on the puppetmaster. That's about it."
It might be a simple apt-get command, but consider setting up Chef Server. You're suddenly adding the following to your system: Ruby, CouchDB, RabbitMQ, Java, merb-assets, merb-core, merb-helpers, merb-param-protection, merb-slices, thin, solr-jetty. And then maybe libxml-ruby, merb-haml, haml, coderay. (From http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Installing+Chef+Server)
That's a whole heap of stuff and moving parts I wasn't looking for. Compare that to the above mentioned Ansible or cdist on the lightweight end of the spectrum.
What distro are you running that's got current Puppet/Chef releases in its archives?
The story may be better for puppet, but with chef, it's pretty much "off to the racetrack" to get the latest and greatest Ruby, Chef, and other deps installed.
Sorry, I don't recall in particular. It was about a year ago.
It was only a basic setup of a user account, a directory tree, and ufw. It took over a minute for either a first or subsequent run on a clean install of Natty. Considering how much more config I had to add and too little time to dedicate to investigating and speeding it up, I had to put Puppet aside.
Good to know 3.0 is a lot faster. I'll give it another look in future.
So from what you write it sounds like the time it took for Puppet to apply the configuration changes was the problem: to install all the packages you wanted, and then to configure and check them. This always takes time though, this isn't Puppet specific.
Came here to comments to post about saltstack. Couldn't agree more. So blindingly fast. I think people who comment that puppet isn't slow just don't know how fast salt is. Tens of thousands of clients polled in just seconds is something puppet just can't approach. I also found not having to learn yet _another_ DSL refreshing.
