Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I'm still waiting for my Xbox to have Toy Story graphics, since it was actually Microsoft who made this claim:

http://netscape.com.com/Microsoft+got+game+Xbox+un veiled/2100-1040_3-250632.html

Why don't you do some research before opening your mouth? News of this has spread to the mass media and Blizzard has admitted on their official website that they are doing this scanning but that we should trust them because they are only doing it to stop cheaters. Several threads containing hundreds of angry replies, many of them legal threats continue to be locked on the WoW forums. Detailed methods of monitoring this scanning have been posted and confirmed by players on the forums e.g. using a tool like Filemon. WoW start scanning your hard drive from the moment you start the game.

There's a recent article on CNET http://news.com.com/Game+players+say+Blizzard+inva des+privacy/2100-1043_3-5830718.html?tag=nefd.ac that describes a process by which illegal mods and hacks can be discovered. This obviously raises an outcry about computer privacy, as every connected computer gets annalyzed. Granted, Blizzard reserved that right within the EULA, but little has been said about the nature and specifics of the scans. How does this scan work, what does it look for as tell-tale signs, and how do you appease a privacy fan and game lover like myself that our trust is not misplaced?

The "planned status" isn't in their control. The copyright office isn't the one doing the back end for their web site that has this requirement, and actually, I'm not sure it's the requirement that people are making it to be.

I don't think people are actually reading this in detail, or perhaps this particular article (TPFA?) doesn't contain the specifics, but the problem here is that the copyright office uses Siebel, which only certifies their current system for use with IE and Netscape 7.02.

This news.com article talks about that more, complete with a quote from someone at Siebel:

"We're running a business, and testing is extremely costly," said Stacey Schneider, director of technology product marketing. "We optimize against what our customers demand. For Siebel 7.8, it became clear, especially for the government sector, that there's demand for Mozilla. But there are hundreds of vendors out there with their own browsers. And not many applications support many more than what we do."

(Currently the copyright office uses Siebel 7.7. They've indicated 7.8 won't be tested with Safari or Opera, of course.) Contacting the copyright office, politely, is a good idea. But I think perhaps Ms. Schneider needs to be contacted, too; ultimately, it's her company that's the problem child.

I don't blame the copyright office for making this choice initially; the chances are checking on Siebel's web server implementation wasn't in their initial requirements for a CRM. The problem is that Siebel knows how difficult it is for their customers to move to another system, so they feel they can get away with half-assed "do it our way or the highway" implementations like this. It'd be great if the copyright office was willing to say, "This must be fixed by [insert deadline here] or we'll migrate to something else," but following through on that would be an extremely non-trivial undertaking.

In addition to being a dupe and a rather obvious attempt to self-promote, it's also a non-story.

"In its request for comments, the office made clear that it plans to support other browsers in the future. In an interview, an attorney with the office said that the sticking point was Siebel software that guaranteed compatibility with only selected browsers--including both IE and Netscape 7.02, a browser with negligible market share--in the current Siebel 7.7 software.

The Copyright Office said it planned to upgrade to Siebel 7.8, which supports Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla 1.7.7, but not in time for the Oct. 24 launch."
(http://news.com.com/U.S.+Copyright+Office+poll+IE -only+OK/2100-1038_3-5827627.html)

Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience)
It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway.

I reacted with similar comments to the OSDL announcement as Bruce, who BTW held a great speech on open source and software patents at a conference in the European Parliament last November. My comments were published on various IT websites, such as News.com.

I just established a criterion: It will only be helpful if and when they gather patents with which they could, for instance, countersue an organization like Microsoft.

The so-called patent pledges that IBM, Sun and Nokia made were attempts to fool those who don't know exactly how the patent game is played (and who don't read the fine print of those terms). Not a single one of those patents could be turned against a company like Microsoft because the holders of those patents already have, as Bruce noted in his comments, cross-licensing agreements in place that are non-aggression pacts with respect to those patents. Apart from that, those patent pledges have lots of strings attached. In some cases, the respective patents are not even valuable (for instance, IBM pledged some medical technology patents). Even if they are, the pledges are tied to certain open-source programs (Nokia's pledge only relates to the Linux kernel, only a small part of Linux itself, and even Linux is just a small part of open source) and/or licenses (that's the problem with Sun's pledge). Then there are clauses in there that talk about exceptions, such as if a company needs to defend itself, and those vague wordings are loopholes that can render an entire pledge useless when push comes to shove.

If any of those large companies are serious about building a protective shield for open source against its competitors, then they have to provide a trustworthy and truly independent open-source body with patents that can be used for retaliatory strikes (i.e., are not part of any existing cross-licensing deals) and consequently are a basis for forcing potential aggressors into cross-licensing agreements to protect all of open source. Simply put, if you have a few dozen patents that could be used to stop the distribution of Windows, then you have a bargaining position. Everything else is useless.

Note that a patent arsenal like this wouldn't work against patent trolls with no products of their own, and an aggressor could hide behind a remote-controlled troll like some suspected in the SCO case.

If people like Bruce Perens and I criticize those patent pledges, we don't do it to hurt our common cause nor to be in the media, but because the patent game is a tricky one and there's a lot of eyewash and brainwash going on. It's important to educate journalists and the community how to take a more knowledgeable perspective on those initiatives. It would be a major mistake to accept totally pointless PR tricks instead of insisting on real solutions. Our criticism is ammunition for the positive forces inside those organizations to ask for truly meaningful measures.

The only definitive solution of the patnet problem is at the legislative level, and until that happens, the only form of defense that makes any sense is the threat of mutually assured destruction.

Diamond Multimedia was the first to market such a device in the late 90s.

Actually, it was a Korean company, Saehan, that released the world's first hardware mp3 player. The Saehan MPMan was released a few months before the first Rio, in June 1998. It was marketed in the US as the Eiger Labs MPMan.

The announcement comes just after a week of Yahoo releasing http://news.com.com/Yahoo+hears+call+of+audio+sear ch/2100-1026_3-5818480.html/ their Audio Search, http://audio.search.yahoo.com/
I guess Yahoo beat Google on this.. but Google will double-cross Yahoo by integrating with worlds best music service, iTunes ! Bravo Google !

PS: can anybody teach me how the heck url formatting works in /. ? this just doesnt work <URL:http://blahblah>anchor text</URL>

If Microsoft or some other anti-OSS software company wants to use their patent portfolio against open source projects, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except perhaps get the patent invalidated, if there is a case for doing so. What it sounds like this was intended to do, and seemingly does do, is present patented technologies that open source projects unambiguously CAN use without fear of retribution.

No. What you do to protect yourself against software patent lawsuits from a software company is threaten them with a bunch of patent lawsuits of your own. This is how the large software companies protect themselves from each other right now, and it's clear that at least one of the purposes of the new patent pool is to give free/open source software a patent arsenal of its own. A list of patents you are allowed to use is vastly less useful, basically because if you're being sued for infringing a patent it doesn't matter how many other patents you're using with permission.

Even the initial press release, written as it is in consensual happy-speak, adds that

The library will also aggregate other legal solutions, such as indemnification programs offered by vendors of open source software.

We will see how successful this is when we begin to negotiate cross-licenses that would otherwise inhibit innovation

Spam used to be a big problem for me until I stopped using Outlook and started using Thunderbird. Dealing with spam used to take minutes, now only seconds. Really, just about 10-30 seconds to identify the bad mail that Thunderbird's filter didn't catch.

Is it not the same for you?

I'm not defending, or apologizing for this guy. I'm just saying that you seem to be making a very big deal about something that, for most of us, isn't taking more than a minute a day to deal with.

By your sentencing formula, shouldn't hackers, virus writers and script kiddies be getting a lot more time than they are now? I mean, how many productivity hours are lost every year due to a virus?

I empathize with you. I'll never forgive George Lucas for the two hours of my life wasted watching SWI.

• No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
• 
  and
• No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
• 
  and
• Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

The first excerpt says that if there is some "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", it is now illegal to circumvent that measure. To borrow from the Fair Use example above, if someone purchased a music compact disc that had some technological measure on it that kept them from copying it to their hard drive as mp3s, it would now be illegal for them to circumvent that technological measure.

The second excerpt says that you cannot create or distribute tools or software that allows circumvention of technological anti-copying measures. To continue the Fair Use example, it is illegal for someone else to create a method to turn a protected purchased disc into mp3s, or to give that method to others.

The third excerpt

They do have every right, legally speaking. It's not a feature of Slashdot or internet culture, it's a feature of the American style of government. Ethically speaking, most security researchers disclose responsibly anyway - they give the company a month or so to fix the problem before telling the world. I, and probably most slashdotters, would agree that telling world+wife before the company producing the software has had a fair bash at the problem is a little off, if only because a lot of us know what it's like to be in the company's position.

In fact, it's essential to have a healthy population of security researchers finding flaws and (eventually) making them public, because it stops companies sitting on their arses for months or otherwise playing silly buggers

Microsoft may get upset with this, as it is similar than their patent on "Identifying when baseball is exciting".

And as a shareholder I'm appalled that Google would engage in such petty behavior just because Cnet offended the CEO.

Actually, CNet violated the canon of journalistic ethics. When you're going to run a negative story about a person or company, you always, always, always call the person or company and see what they have to say; this is known as "reporting the whole story". Often in a story like this all you'll end up with is a blurb that "calls to Google were not returned" or "officials at Google had no comment", but ethics demands you at least try to get a comment from them. CNet didn't, because journalistic ethics would have gotten in the way of their snarky story, and now Google's shutting them out as retaliation.

And note that in some countries, this is actually enshrined in law as the "right of reply", which, oddly enough, CNet hates.

Amazon Settles Patent Suit For $40M theodp writes "In today's SEC filing, Amazon.com disclosed it will pay $40 million to settle an e-commerce patent infringement lawsuit that was reported earlier on Slashdot. The terms of the settlement also provide for dismissal of all claims and counterclaims and grant Amazon a nonexclusive license to Soverain's patent portfolio."

Wow, I depressed, $40M will only further strengthen the incentive on this patent behavior - I wish amazon stuck it out. Not that I care about amazon that much, but it only raises the barrier of entry for the little guys - especially on stupid shopping cart technology.

FYI Soverain held patents on "shopping cart" technology.

Here's another article on it:
http://news.com.com/Amazon+pays+40+million+to+sett le+patent+dispute/2100-1030_3-5829193.html

what's really telling is that it took a class action to get apple to address the ibook and ipod hardware failures. apple stubbornly refused to address or fix the issues, until a class action forced them to act. they had plenty of notice and warning, and refused to do anything about it.

and sort of related, it took a class action to get apple to own up to its failed promise that osx would fully support g3 macs.

as the saying goes: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ...

The original CNET article is here The original CNET article is here I think it is actually not that bad as far as privacy invasion, except for where they listed his home address - thay goes a step far. Anyway, a curious aside - check out the link to his homepage - it's linked from the article as this and takes you to here where there is a picture bearing his likeness, and an @yahoo.com email address! Hack? Sarcastic joke??!!

The original CNET article is here The original CNET article is here I think it is actually not that bad as far as privacy invasion, except for where they listed his home address - thay goes a step far. Anyway, a curious aside - check out the link to his homepage - it's linked from the article as this and takes you to here where there is a picture bearing his likeness, and an @yahoo.com email address! Hack? Sarcastic joke??!!

Sorry, but with all this hoopla, I went to the original article.

Other posts have described this has a "hatchet job" or "over the top" - I consider this to be a good example of quality reporting!

Why does the Paparazzi exist? Because they only bug celebrities and other public figures. Google is a public company, making its CEO a public figure.

In my eyes, Google is taking a big shot in its image with this stupid, short-sighted move.

My home phone number and address is not in the phone book. Yet, a short google search just now turned up my home address AND telephone number because my wife serves on a home-schooling committee that published minutes.

How is this not relevant? This is reporting at its best, identifying a real, potential social problem, and with this maneuver, Google is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Once a PC user, always a PC user. After years of careful study, it is now known that while one's personality may determine his or her choice of OS, the reverse is never the case. In other words, nothing can rob these happy souls of their superior creativity, intellect, and style--but then neither, alas, can anything be done to rescue people like these from eternal virginity. No matter how much time they spend in Mac OS X, Darwin, FreeBSD, or Pianos, they are doomed to live as shadows among men. The more fortunate among us should mourn them--for theirs, truly, are the lives of the never-been. It is nature's cruel will.

... Cnet is singling out Google for something that can be done on any search engine.

Not true.

The original CNet article was not solely about all the information you can search for. It was also about all of the information Google can collect about users of its services, and how to balance all of that information against privacy. Granted, you have to read past the first page to get the gist of article.

Not all the major search engines have the same reach here. Things like GMail, Froogle, and even AdWords makes it possible for Google to collect and correlate a huge amount of data about their users. Other big portals, like Yahoo!, were mentioned in the article. (Like many tech stories now, when Google does it, it's news, even if the competitors have been doing it for a while.) But the article points out distinctions between the Google's data resources and those of its competition.

GMail offered magnitudes more space than anyone else at the time it came out, and it made all those messages easy to search. This dramatically changed the usage pattern for many email users. Instead of having a few items in their inboxes, they would now keep everything indefinitely. Turns out this has a legal effect in the U.S., since data routinely kept less than 180 days have more privacy protections (under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) than those kept longer. GMail also doesn't provide a well-defined delete feature, so the 180-day test is a little more vague.

I'll grant you that the CNet article was a bit sensationalistic, and it starts out with a different thrust than the rest of the piece, but it does raise some good points about privacy and data collection.

Nonsense. The new.com.com. article was right on the money and in my opionion the information it exposed about the google CEO is rather mild - certainly it didn't warrent the response.

Okay, I finally went back and read the whole CNet article. I now revert to my original opinion: CNet was not doing anything out of line by publishing the information they did. And why do I think that now?

Because the subject of CNet's article was an analysis of potential privacy issues with Google's search, e-mail, and storage services.

Within that context, using Google's own services to obtain information that's used to illustrate the potential privacy concerns was entirely appropriate and completely relevant to the topic. ...how did actually publishing the information advance the reporting of the news, though? Was there any reason to rattle off specific bits of personal information instead of simply saying "We were able to find his SSN, address and personal cell number"?

Why yes, there was. In journalism, just as in creative writing, the mantra is "show, don't tell". If the information is publicly available, then there's really no reason to expect that it remain "hidden" in those circumstances.

My sole caveat, but this is simply from a personal opinion now, is that it might have been better to check with Google (either the corporation, or with the executive's staff) to let them know they wanted to include that information in the article ahead of time, and offer an opportunity for feedback, perhaps to find alternative subjects for linked search subjects. However, the information searched and linked to in the article was hardly "private", and absolutely nothing like the invasions of privacy committed by the tabloids (like I suggested might be similar in my previous response).

To sum up, I think that CNet might've been pushing the limit with the part about the executive's residential data, but there was nothing at all wrong with publishing any of that information in an article about people's concerns about privacy with regards to Google's services.

Generally, I agree with your assessment. However...

If CNet had a story about how Google's founder was fighting an attempt to build a mall near his home, it might have been reasonable to include the name of the street he lives upon, because that's relevent too. But this?

The original article was on Google's potential use as a tool for ferreting out "private" information. Hence, Mr. Schmidt's "private" information would seem to be relevant as a compelling example of the problem.

Moreover, the original article did not provide a street address in the text (though it linked to it). Most of the other facts it listed were stuff you might find in any Forbes or Fortune article. Really, only that one link to his address would seem beyond the pale.

Avalon will be a system for declaratively defining a rich ui. The design will presumably allow for what is called a RIA here, but isn't limited to that. More analogous is Microsoft's Atlas, which will probably be released much sooner, and be more cross-platform.

As long as I can see it with my eyes and hear it with my ears it can be copied.

Requiring someone to have their DVD player plugged into the net reminds me of the old DivX players that died a horrible death. For those of you that don't remember. DivX death

I believe this is the case youre referring to.

And yes, ebooks have been cracked, and will be again. Particularly when you foist them upon a young, rebellious, smarter than average, and technologically savvy demographic group.

This bright idea is doomed to failure, and I for one am going to enjoy watching it go down in flames.

Netflix 2nd Quarter

I'd say on-track for a $650mil year is pretty successful.

Yes, it's the The brains behind Apple's Rosetta.

There are some other links on the Transitive Home Page about Apple using it for Rosetta.

Pah! What is this? We aren't just some "other people"--we're the smartest, most creative, fashionable, and beautiful people on the planet. Certainly we make butt-scratching troglodytes out of the average Win/IE user. In my humble estimation, then, we Mac users are more entitled than anyone to copyright protection. The Copyright Office should be ashamed.

Microsoft's efforts to fight counterfeiting have hit another snag with the posting of a new method claimed to get around a Windows piracy check.

http://news.com.com/Another+way+past+Windows+antip iracy+found/2100-1002_3-5821113.html
http://www.sinhack.net/GenuineAdvantage/
http://www.filemirrors.com/search.src?type=begins& file=GenuineCheck.exe&action=Find

Using Google, I found this CNet article from 1999 about Microsoft joining Oasis XML group. Albeit I didn't follow news that much back then, so I'm not sure what has happened since.

• Egghead and Onsale merged in 1999
• Egghead went out of business and purchased by Amazon in 2001
• The Newegg Wikipedia article refutes it
• ...and so do a few epinions comments.

ChiefValue is very close/the same company as Newegg, although it's denied; see here and here.

• Egghead and Onsale merged in 1999
• Egghead went out of business and purchased by Amazon in 2001
• The Newegg Wikipedia article refutes it
• ...and so do a few epinions comments.

ChiefValue is very close/the same company as Newegg, although it's denied; see here and here.

Georgia Tech uses this device for some intro Physics Classes and some CS Classes.

The device we use iPRS uses just a simple infrared signal. In a class with 300+ Students there are several readers mounted in different parts of the room since the device has a relatively short range.

• No more than one person can submit an answer at any time (thus you have to keep trying to send it until it goes through, you see your name/number change color).
• You have the possibility to change you answer a certain number of times.
• The software is available in the lecture pc's and easily analyzable.
• The device will send a short message that includes: ID # of the Reader & Answer specified

The PRS response was required as part of the grade for the class (10%). A group of us (CS Majors) started thinking on ideas on how to around this. The first solution we implemented (Before we were able to translate the IR message into clear text) involved "recording" each of the answers from our group, thus one person sitting in the class could answer for all of us through his laptop. We later switched to an IR-Equipped Ipod.

That was ok but the person answering did not always answer the correct question (answering correctly gave you extra points). We were later able to decode the messages from the IR signal. And that's where things got fun.

We placed a laptop sitting nearby one of the "sensors" (end of white strip, on wall) and just analyze all the data coming live. We had about 30-60 seconds to answer thus we could analyze the data up to 25 - 55 seconds, estimate what the most "popular" answer was and then submit all of ours answers at the last second. That gave us almost 100% accuracy since whenever the class erred, the professor would step back, re-explain the problem and then see if the answer was right.

We used iPods, laptops and a CS-classroom-issued-Ipaq. The ipaq would eventually analyze the data through it's own high speed IR port and then send out our "responses" through a mp3 file (that came out of the IR device).

Also: the system is usecure, it is easy to skew the statistics by introducing new users to the system or to overwrite your ex gf's answer.

Although there was very little benefit, beating the system felt good!

Also posting anonymously, though I am not subject to the same NDA you are because I didn't pony up for the dev kit.

First observation: The original article linked to a C|Net article that directly contradicts it. Of course, this link was provided in an update to the original article.

Second observation: There's at least one piece of code in the developer's edition of OS X for Intel, according to threads on the OSX86 discussion forumns, that uses the TPMACPI kernel extension. (I won't be linking directly to the articles, and anyway, you need membership to view or post there.) That piece of code happens to be the Rosetta software, and it will not function without the presence of a TPM. Furthermore, at least one daemon process that is crucial for the GUI to function is only present as a PowerPC binary in the software released with the dev system -- effectively tying this version of OS X for Intel to the developer hardware. No Rosetta, no GUI, no working OS.

I'm guessing the description which was overloaded lead you to click the wrong link. The pertinent article is located in the last link, and it is fairly evident which link proves the point of the description. Just in case you're still having trouble finding it, here it is. http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Virus+target+wont+be +in+Vista/2100-1002_3-5820706.html?part=rss&tag=58 20706&subj=news

Google could not be immediately reached for comment. (Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.)

Google could not be immediately reached for comment. (Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.)

I followed the Rackspace link, and ended up reading a seamingly unrelated article: Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived.

Well, this article is mostly a reproduction of a judge's opinion in a garbage-can-search case, and it is an excellent read. The judge appears to have let off some (insightful) steam.

Read it.

No it isn't ... http://news.com.com/Googles+balancing+act/2100-103 2_3-5787483.html

AFAIK I am right http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/61105 http://news.com.com/SBC+plans+to+get+naked/2100-10 34_3-5698066.html

As a Speakeasy customer who relies on their static to get work done, I was greatly alarmed by this article on Ars when it was posted yesterday. So, I did a little digging, and found this article. From it, I learned that the FCC is now only considering dropping the requirements that carriers must resell their finished DSL services, not the actual CLECs that rent the lines and have phsyical equipment in COs such as Covad. The following quote from the article illisutrates their evolving position:

The commissioners have been behind closed doors trying to work out an agreement that both Republicans and Democrats can support, the source said. At least one of the Democrats--either Michael J. Copps or Jonathan S. Adelstein--are likely to agree with the change in the rules if certain conditions are met, the source said.

Specifically, Democrats are looking for a transitional period where ISPs would still be guaranteed access to wholesale DSL service. They also want the FCC order to expressly state that deregulating DSL would only apply to Internet service providers (ISP) access and would not impact access to local loops from competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).

The current rules allow ISPs, such as EarthLink, to buy finished DSL services at wholesale prices. The ISPs then sell customers Internet services, such as Web access, spam filtering and specialized content on their portals using the DSL service from the phone companies. By contrast, CLECs such as Covad, only lease the copper infrastructure from the phone companies. These carriers provide the infrastructure equipment to create the DSL service.

Since Speakeasy resells Covad services (or at least they do in my case), Speakeasy isn't going anywhere. Granted, no agreement has been met yet, but it appears that a block of the FCC Commissioners is looking out for us. It is a bit disturbing to FCC mucking with these rules in anyway. It is clear that they don't understand the degree of reliance folks have on these services for their livelihoods.

For the sake of permanence, here's a permalink to the article itself, rather than the blog front page: http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5815946.html

I'm not sure which is worse... that IndyMedia scrambled the techs and pulled everything when all they were supposedly* required to delivery was logs, or that CNet is now delivering news in blog format just to try to be cool ;)

*Good point from the poster below, there may have been PATRIOTACT subpoenas too, we'll never know since it's a federal crime even to mention it !

direct link to the article

It gets even funnier in this further bastardized version at CNET -- another contradiction right in the first paragraph:

"Virus writers are targeting a new Microsoft tool that will be part of Windows and is set to ship as part of the next Exchange e-mail server release."

Again, the topic there is also misleading; this isn't about Vista, this is about Monad. Monad will be released for three operating systems, not one. And I hear now it's not even a vulnerability.

It's 10:36 pm Eastern, and I just found this article on CNET which states that Apple Dev Kits DO have TPM (as several of you have already pointed out. http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news I also cam across this article which says the PlayStation 3 will be able to run OS X Tiger. http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news

It's 10:36 pm Eastern, and I just found this article on CNET which states that Apple Dev Kits DO have TPM (as several of you have already pointed out. http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news I also cam across this article which says the PlayStation 3 will be able to run OS X Tiger. http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news

Uhm, additionally?

My post was about Linux & Windows... try keep on the topic I used, please, thanks.

BUT, there is RealBasic & I mentioned it in another reply here, it WILL write one codebase for Win32, Linux, & Macs. I have not tried it, and it is relatively an "infant" still, but imo?

A "baby hercules" really... especially for a 'write once, run everywhere in TRUE std. stand-alone .exe non-interpreted form" from a single codebase type of app on ALL 3 platforms.

Again - I haven't tried it, but like the sound of it already... especially imo, for the future of OS' being more "interoperable" & also having more common apps too!

By the by -

Linux folks & places like IBM as well, see the URL's below, HIGHLY AWARDED & RECEIVED KYLIX with great appreciation apparently:

(Also, @ tradeshows & such for it as well as mags for it)

Linux people have HIGHLY awarded & reviewed Kylix as an excellent tool!

See here in these:

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/ techarticle/0211swart/0211swart2.html

&

http://builder.com.com/5100-22-1064560.html

"Best Linux Development Tool: Borland Kylix 2
Borland wrapped up a double play by taking home our Best Linux Development Tool award for Kylix in yet another landslide. Kylix finished with 50 percent of the final vote. I was mildly surprised to see KDE Studio finish as first runner-up with 14.4 percent in our Linux category, slightly ahead of Metrowerks CodeWarrior for Linux with 12.4 percent. Its interesting to note that these three tools accounted for over 75 percent of the votes cast in this category, so obviously these companies are doing something right."

http://www.zdnetasia.com/builder/program/dev/0,390 45513,39163332,00.htm

http://www.programmersheaven.com/zone2/articles/ar ticle317.htm

"One of the potentially exciting things about Kylix is being able to write Apache web server shared modules."

http://sdmagazine.com/jolts/2002/year_01.htm

Tons more too, I could fill the page so... Heck, just search "Awards" and "Kylix" on GOOGLE, you will see I am not b.s.'ing you!

(32 pages worth of them) :)

APK