Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You’re touching on a complex area here, and one that doesn’t have easy answers of the “my fave DB good, M$ bad” type.
I think Matthew’s point here is simply that MSSQL tends to be configured to use Windows authentication so if you have access to a sufficiently privileged Windows account (as seems to be the case here), then you have access to the database. Most other database systems are configured to use with their own authentication schemes.
It's not that MSSQL is bad in this case, it's just more integrated.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
First, I’m going to stipulate that I don’t believe for a moment Romney’s comments were “off the cuff” in any generally used use of the phrase. “Inconveniently candid, because I never thought they’d be made public” would be closer to the truth.
That's the impression I get.
It would also show some presidential gravitas to NEVER talk about people who don’t support you as ipso facto feckless, lazy boobs.
Which bit of the Republican campaign gave you the impression he had any presidential gravitas? I must missed it.
Least of all, it’s also spectacularly bad politics.
Stunningly bad. The last few weeks have shown me that Team Romney has very questionable political judgement.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Gareth Ward,
It's actually the "and so my job is not to worry about those people" line that blows me away - here's a man intending to be President who claims his job is not to worry about 47% of the population?!
It seems clear to me that he's talking about the campaign, not the presidency. And in that respect he's right - his job is to convince the swing voters, not the entrenched democrats. But if he really believes the 47% of Americans getting some form of government support exactly line up with those who support the democrats, then he's a fool. He's certainly alienated some of those central voters he said he's focusing on.
What is concerning is the contempt he has for those people, and the stereotype of them that he's subscribed to. I'm sure he was telling the audience what he thought they wanted to hear, so perhaps his really opinion isn't so strong. It's hard to say with him. But despite his penchant for changing his views, I doubt those opinions would change if he were elected.
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to JonathanM,
In your example, you suggested that Photoshop 5.5 from Adobe would no longer be expected to be able to be purchased. A quick google shows that you can in fact purchase this still.
Note I said "from Adobe". And I think you'll find a lot of those links are "CS 5.5" which is not the same as the version that runs on Win 95. There do seem to be a small number of new and used copies of 5.5 on Amazon however. But my point is that you can't buy it from the developer. Adobe are not pressing new copies of the PS 5.5 CD, printing new copies of the manual, or providing a downloadable version.
This is not, however, possible in this brave new world of the iOS device: once Apple decides to stop distributing it, that’s it. I’m not sure that the argument “you knew that when you bought it” is enough to counter this concern.
The only difference I see is that there is only one retail store for iOS apps. If all the retailers sell out of PS 5.5 and Adobe aren't producing new copies then are you not in exactly the same position? But again, it's the developer's decision to stop supporting old versions of the OS, not Apple's. Yes, Apple could provide old versions of the app, but this is not something that is common in the rest of the software industry either, and I suspect it's not something the app developers necessarily want (certainly I don't see many developers asking for it).
I did a quick check of the top apps in iTunes. Here is a summary of the iOS version required for them:
5.x: 4. The two Apple apps in the lists both require 5.1, the latest iOS version.
4.x: 15. 5 of which require 4.3 which is not available on an iPhone 3G.
3.x: 9. The original iPad came with 3.2.I guess you could criticise Apple for requiring the newest version of iOS when it's not really necessary, but I think that's their prerogative. You could still install 1/3 of those apps with an iPad you'd never updated and 86% of those apps on a device that hadn't been updating in over a year (i.e. one running 4.3). I don't think the situation is all that dire.
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to JonathanM,
The third problem would be if you’re no longer able to install apps that you could have before the iOS update was available now that you’ve not agreed to the updated T&C’s for iTunes. In this case, you really have lost ability of the iPad – the ability to install apps under the T&C’s you originally signed up for. This is definitely Apple’s fault – they maintain versions of apps appropriate for older versions of iOS (they have to, as older devices don’t run iOS 5 for instance) so you should be able to install them under the older operating system that you have.
I don't agree (or perhaps I don't understand your point correctly). The apps that Apple include with the OS (e.g. Phone, Clock etc) are part of the OS - they can't be updated separately. For other apps, whether from Apple or not, I don't agree that either Apple or the developer has a responsibility to maintain the availability of old versions. If I had refused to update from Windows 95, surely I can't expect to be able to run the latest version of Photoshop, and surely I can't expect to still be able to buy Photoshop 5.5 (the last version that worked on Win95) from Adobe?
I don't think the situation is different with these devices. If app X was available for iOS y and I didn't bother to install it, do I have a right to complain that X 2.0 requires iOS y+1 and I can no longer install X 1.0? I don't think I do, but even if I did, it would be the developer of X that was at fault wouldn't it? If app X hasn't been updated then yes you should still be able to install it on iOS y even after iOS y+1 comes out. And that's the situation that exists. There are millions of people on old versions of iOS. The iPhone 3 is stuck forever on iOS 4.2.1. My wife has one of them. Being stuck on that version has not stopped her installing new apps (unless they require a newer version of the OS) and it hasn't prevented old apps from working. I don't see many other people complaining about this situation either.
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to Tamara,
However, if the original terms included one that said that you would have to accept any new terms from time to time or else your devices wouldn’t work optimally then you couldn’t really argue with that. Does anyone know if there is a term to that effect?
All of Apple's terms and conditions are available online: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ (incidientally they are a lot easier to find that many companies' T&Cs). There is nothing in the license that indicates that refusing to update the OS might stop existing apps from working. It does say that an OS update might be accompanied by a new license. Of course you are not required to update the OS.
If you don't update the OS but do update the apps then yes, you could run into trouble if the updated app requires a newer version of the OS. I'm not sure if it will warn or stop you from updating an app that way. But every time you sync the device it creates a backup so you do have the opportunity to revert if you update something and you don't like the results. I can't see how you can run into any issues if you don't update anything on the device - perhaps if the app gets content online and the codecs used change or something. I wouldn't think that would happen much, and if it does, surely the app developer is to blame.
Neither Apple nor the app developers are obligated to give you updates (though there is an argument that they have a responsibility in terms of security updates). If they offer an update and you don't like the T&Cs then simply don't take the update. I don't see how you've lost anything in that case. If you don't want to update the OS then you probably should be very careful about updating apps but it won't stop you using the device and it won't stop you installing new apps that are happy with the OS version you have.
Like Russell, I'm struggling to see the problem here.
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
The iPad is entirely useless when first purchased (or at least mine was) without iTunes. So immediately to even use the device I have to install that software and accept any terms it requires.
The original iPad stated on the back of the box that it required iTunes 9.1 or later and an iTunes account (for some features). If you had concerns about the terms and conditions for either of those you could have checked them out before you bought the device. It was also stated on Apple's website.
The latest iPad doesn't require iTunes but does require an Apple ID. Again this requirement is stated on the back of the box.
I think the onus is on the purchaser to ensure that they are comfortable with the T&C before they buy the thing. It's not like they can't find out in advance.
To continue using the product in the way it's intended I also have to continue accepting any changes in those terms that Apple chooses to make.
Yes, subsequent changes could put you in the position of having to accept T&C you don't agree with or stop using the device. I agree that's not particularly fair or reasonable.
-
This is great news!
-
Sydney at night.
-
Hard News: Disrupting the Television, in reply to Russell Brown,
There’s no bloody excuse for having data allocations expire after a month – and it doesn’t happen in many other countries.
It's dodgy. What I find interesting is that Telecom used to roll any unused data over - it was the primary reason I went with them when I got my iPad (the better 3G coverage is nice too). Even then it seemed like they went out of their way to hide the fact that it worked that way. Since they changed all their new plans a year ago I can only assume that they feel they can't make enough profit selling people only the data they use.
