FileMakerFeller

plymouthpatsfan said:

this reminds me.. how did they get away with ripping off Java again?

Because the management of Sun didn't value Java enough and were happy for someone else to deal with the raving open source fans. When Oracle tried to enforce their IP rights they were hamstrung by the fact that Sun hadn't done anything to enforce those rights in the past. The libraries were then deemed by the courts to be copyrightable implementations but the function interfaces were deemed exempt since the vast majority of functions have an intrinsic order of parameters that does not involve creativity.

The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) makes use of this same ruling to provide a programmatically-equivalent version of the Android OS... but they can't implement Google's Play Store code on it because that remains closed-source code. Since the vast majority of apps are on the Google Play store, you need to jump through several hoops as a user to obtain and install apps for a phone with AOSP and you miss out on the security and functionality updates from Google until the AOSP crew can recreate them.

Yet more proof that idealists don't do too well in a capitalist system.

thethirdshoe said:

4) My wife had surgery a couple of days ago. I'm sitting there watching the nurses shove around paperwork, typing stuff into the monitor that was in the room. It looked so primitive. One had to pull out a calculator to determine the rate for the saline drip. That is all going to go away within 10 years.

I wish I could share your optimism on that timeframe. I'm working on software for a mental health clinic, and the number of roadblocks to getting something new into the system is staggering. The end users in any hospital setting are dealing with stressful situations all day long so it's natural for them to revert to something that (a) they know works, and (b) they don't have to think about - overcoming that inertia is hard.

Then you've got to deal with the policies and procedures relating to information access and storage (e.g. "does this person have permission to view/edit the details of this patient?"), meaning a review has to be conducted by someone who has insufficient time available already... the institutional inertia is another factor.

I hope your wife has a speedy recovery.

You appear to have missed https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/05/12/monduo-16-inch-pro-duo-display-review-fun-and-practical-but-mac-owners-have-better-choices

bulk001 said:

Funny that the results were not so nebulous that you could write a whole article on it now. Why the rush to judgement? Why not just wait till machines with the new AMD chip are released and then you know, report actual results?  Crazy idea right?

It's worth an immediate response that verifies the reported results as at least somewhat credible. Apple's claims when the M1 chip was announced underwent the same scrutiny from the PC side of the fence; the difference was that Apple had complete systems available to test in a short timeframe after their announcement, tuned to perfection. Since AMD is only selling the SoC, we have to wait for the chips to be available in commercial quantities and for properly-engineered systems to be developed and then hope that the other performance factors in a PC don't have a meaningful real world impact on the chip comparison.

If you're buying a laptop today or in the next few months, Apple remains the performance leader in general computing tasks. If you can wait six months, re-evaluate then.

appleinsideruser said:

Er, what about the fact MacOS blocks the app from running, but lets the malware install ok? That could be better! 

It's not the just the execution of the app that causes the problem, it's the installer - you can define a script that runs after the actual installation to clean up temporary files and my guess is that the malware uses this option to grab the malicious payload and kick off the process.