Slashdot Mirror

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824229,00.as p

It concntrates on the Darwin OS core of Mac OS X's suport for architectures other than PPC.

Notable quotes are:

Just because you can read Darwin on a PC, though, doesn't mean that you can run Mac OS on your x86 box. Mac OS includes many layers of proprietary software such as Cocoa, Quartz 2D, QuickTime and OpenGL graphics. You can forget about downloading Gnu-Darwin or OpenDarwin and start running Mac OS X or most OS X applications on an x86 system. You simply can't do it.

and...

Of course, if Apple elects to only ship its operating system with its own branded hardware, it will avoid this problem. On the other hand, most of the push for Mac OS on Intel historically has come from users who wanted to use the operating system on commodity-priced x86 hardware.

Incidentally, Apple's own download of it's open source (APSL - Apple Public Source Licence) darwin code is available here for x86...

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

You will need to join the Apple developer network to get at this link though.

Let's just say that it is all a step in the right direction. Whether Apple sticks with proprietary hardware or moves on to a more open hardware and becomes more of a software company remains to be seen. At the moment it is only going to be available on a specific Apple supplied hardware bundle, as per the keynote which says the OS X for Intel preview will be supplied with an Intel 3.6GHz machine.

In the long term though, the model of the software only company has been a fairly proven business model in Microsoft as compared to almost any hardware vendor you can care to name. Arguments about the XBox not withstanding.

Those that are mad keen could always join the Apple developer network, hack the preview OS X to work with non-standard hardware sets and see what happens. Another alternative for the mad keen is Pear PC, a PPC emulator, found here:

http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2005 /01/18/PearPC.html

Enjoy!

No, not at lunchtime...AMD is getting pounded into the ground by Intel like a tent stake in July. AMD might be turning out some pretty good products but no one is buying the high-end AMD stuff and the Intel-Apple deal is another example of a computer maker turning their back on AMD's excellent products. Dell, Gateway, Sony, and IBM/Lenovo are already 'Intel only' oems. HP still sells AMD but only for a few models. The result is that AMD is not not making any money selling cpu chips and it is only a matter of time before they have to fold their tent and leave the field to Intel. Sure, the AMD flash memory business was a loser for them recently but, according to the article, the cpu sales were only $750 million for Q1 2005. AMD's market share for Q1 2005 was 16.9 percent of a worldwide market of approximately 120 million units. That means that AMD's average selling price was only about $37. Obviously, AMD is selling mostly the ultra-cheap low-powered 32-bit Semprons and only a relative tiny handful of the high-powered 64-bit $200+ units. AMD has some excellent high-end chips are but no one ever seems to actually buy them in the kind of volume that might allow an innovative company like AMD to survive in business.

The AMD link isn't really about how it'll hurt AMD, but about how Apple couldn't choose AMD because AMD can't reliably keep up with that level of demand.

Since a producer that has 16.9 percent market share, can't support a producer that has 3.7% market share? Sounds unlikely at best. Granted, there would have to be a ramp-up, but with a commitment from Apple, I dont see how a 25% capacity growth is a lot.

Kjella

They're still working on putting out a chip based on LongRun2, which reduces transistor leakage. This is very important for cutting power consumption and increasing CPU speed. They've also licensed the technology to Fujitsu, NEC and Sony, none of which have released a product based on it yet.

It's quite possible, though apparently unlikely, that Transmeta will turn things around and manage to survive. However, Intel is already all over the leakage problem, so this may well be the end of Transmeta.

They're still working on putting out a chip based on LongRun2, which reduces transistor leakage. This is very important for cutting power consumption and increasing CPU speed. They've also licensed the technology to Fujitsu, NEC and Sony, none of which have released a product based on it yet.

It's quite possible, though apparently unlikely, that Transmeta will turn things around and manage to survive. However, Intel is already all over the leakage problem, so this may well be the end of Transmeta.

Dual core PowerPC G5 on the way, not Intel.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.as p core that's somewhere between the G5 and the G4," Krewell said, "But that's a significant design undertaking ... and it's a limited-size market. A redesigned core might be attractive for future multicore processors" for desktops and servers as well, he said.

Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.

"That's still a 2006 thing ... and it's designed for the network world," he said. "It would require some modifications. But it's doable."

Representatives from Apple and IBM declined to comment for this story. A Freescale spokesman did not return a call.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to reflect the fact that an Apple representative returned a phone call to eWEEK.com but declined to comment.

Apple has always craved publicity. This looks like what could be their smartest move in a long time.

Okay. You've got a keynote coming up on monday, you want people to listen. What do you do ? Leak a very, very controversial story to the mainstream technological press. This story is sure to get every Mac fan riled up.

And they'll be thinking about it all weekend, and they'll be listening to the keynote. Apple has generated massive interest in their keynote speech.

So, what will they actually announce on Monday ? Well, there's another leaked story today, at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.as p - it's about Dual-Core G5s.

So here's my prediction for Monday's announcement. Apple announces Dual G5s and confirms that the PPC architecture is moving forward - also mentionning the amazing new PPC chips made for the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Apple also announces a new chip supplier: Intel. Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. Here's my guess:

For the sake of argument, let's call the new Apple computer line the e-Ntels. Low end machines, powered by Intel chips. They're computer appliances. They come pre-loaded with OS X x86-64 and Apple apps.

You can't install conventional software on them - every piece of software comes pre-installed by Apple, and gets automatically updated. The only software that you can run on it is approved by Apple, and is automatically deployed on all the e-Ntels.

The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.

You can pick one up like you pick up an iPod or a console. Costs at most 300$. You don't need to know anything about computers to use one - they run the incredibly user friendly OS X, which has been stripped down to be even easier.

So, what about the Macs, then ? Well, if you ever overgrow your i-Ntel, if you ever become a power user.. If you ever need software past that which is preinstalled on the i-Ntel (and it'll include everything most home users need), you get a real Mac.

And those Macs will be powerful. They will have fast dual-core PPC chips, and everything you expect from a Mac. They'll be able to network with your i-Ntel appliance, without any configuration, thanks to Rendezvous.

You're a current Mac user ? You'll want an inexpensive i-Ntel tablet and HTPC. It runs OS X and communicates with your real Mac.

Not a Mac user right now ? Tired of your shitty old PC ? Apple has a very inexpensive solution to your problem. Pick up the tiny i-Ntel box availaible at all good computer stores, plug it in, and you're good to go.

I can't wait to know what they're going to announce on Monday. But trust me: they're not dropping PPC - and the use of Intel chips is going to enhance their offerings. Everybody is going to be pleased, including hardcore Mac fans.

Dual core PowerPC G5 on the way, not Intel.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.as p

Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple

Building a G5 PowerBook could be an aesthetic challenge for Apple. The G5 chip tends to consume more power and produce more heat than the G4. Hotter, more power-hungry chips tend to require a thicker, more spacious chassis and larger, higher-capacity batteries--all of which might lead to a more portly PowerBook.

But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range. At the moment, two of its three PowerBook G4 portables weigh in at over 5 pounds.

Aiding portability, IBM has also added a power-management feature to the PowerPC 970FX. Called PowerTune, it can cut the chip's clock speed, therefore lowering its voltage, in order to save on power.

Therefore, a 1.8GHz PowerPC 970FX would be a good choice--it would top the current G4 processor--but power management might still be an issue in some other ways.

The 1.8GHz chip "might be 35 watts or something like that. There are plenty of 35-watt [notebook] processors out there. The big problem is you want to get average power [consumption] to be a lot lower. That relies to a large degree on software management," Glaskowsky said. "If I had to pick a reason why it hasn't shown up yet ... I'd say it's [Apple power management] software."

Still, not everyone believes that the Power PC 970FX makes a great notebook chip.

"Right now, from IBM's perspective, the [PowerPC] 970 is a pretty competitive part, but they definitely lack a low-power version," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report, in San Jose, Calif. "The question is, can you get it low enough--25 watts to 35 watts--in order to get it into something sleek enough for Apple?"

To arrive at the right mix of frequency and performance, Krewell suggests that IBM and Apple might need to consider creating a new G4-G5 hybrid instead of delivering a low-power 970.

"The best route would be to develop a new [processor] core that's somewhere between the G5 and the G4," Krewell said, "But that's a significant design undertaking ... and it's a limited-size market. A redesigned core might be attractive for future multicore processors" for desktops and servers as well, he said.

Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.

"That's still a 2006 thing ... and it's designed for the network world," he said. "It would require some modifications. But it's doable."

Representatives from Apple and IBM declined to comment for this story. A Freescale spokesman did not return a call.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to reflect the fact that an Apple representative returned a phone call to eWEEK.com but declined to comment.

This article is just flat out wrong.

From the article:

"Microsoft Corp. plans to announce as early as next week that it is ready to ship a Windows 2000 Update Rollup, the final security patch for the 5-year-old operating system."

The final security patch? Microsoft will provide security-related patches for Windows 2000 until 2010. Heck, even eWeek's own site basically says that here.

Am I missing something?

CRN, GeekCoffee, Business Wire, and eWeek

Microsoft Corp. also uses XML in its most recent Microsoft Office formats. While it has opened these formats to some extent, Microsoft's XML formats are still proprietary and it has tried to patent some of its XML format technology. Microsoft also charges royalties for accessing its formats.

So far we have the word of a few bloggers that these will truely be royalty free. That doesn't necessarily mean that it can be used in *any* project. Remember, some things are "look but don't touch".

I can almost picture you there: the hobby coder for whom the world revolves around glacially moving mailing lists and IRC channels.

You, sir, are a very poor judge of character and experience. Let me put it this way: Once upon a time I thought Microsoft was the best company on the planet. I actually argued against my peers that Microsoft was not a bad company. Then I began to learn more about software engineering and the other OSes that Microsoft stamped out. Didn't take very long before I'd managed to trace most of the history of Microsoft's "innovation". In order:

- Microsoft BASIC was nothing more than a quick port of an existing BASIC language written by others.
- DOS was a cheap CP/M knockoff that Microsoft purchased.
- Windows was marketing hype designed to keep people from buying VisiOn.
- Word, Excel, and other office programs were purchased from other companies.
- COM was a Unix technology that Microsoft bought out and retasked for Windows.
- NT was the next generation VMS kernel (that Microso

As this article points out:

Microsoft Corp. also uses XML in its most recent Microsoft Office formats. While it has opened these formats to some extent, Microsoft's XML formats are still proprietary and it has tried to patent some of its XML format technology. Microsoft also charges royalties for accessing its formats.

...now that they've all but killed off all of the commercial, vendor-supported competition.

And whatever happened to Office Integrated Rights Management, essentially a DRM for Office documents (New Office locks down documents) that (of course) requires a Windows server to administer, and only works with Microsoft Office? You don't think that they're just going to let that go by the wayside, do you?

And what about patents?

Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice), just as it has been for Red Hat, but I can't see this as anything more than a much belated, empty gesture on Microsoft's part. This sums it up: "Microsoft is doing this as a way to protect its presence on the desktop." Microsoft even dug up Charles Goldfarb, "co-inventor of the concept of markup languages", for its press release to say, "Making XML the default Office file format is, for me, the culmination of a 35-year dream," Charles F. Goldfarb, the inventor of the markup language technology, said in a statement released by Microsoft. Nice touch.

Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think? They're looking for the biggest lock-in of all with the proprietary Windows Media formats. Microsoft wants to be everywhere there is any kind of media, and it's NOT open. Boy, I can't wait to live in a world where Microsoft controls and meters content and has everyone from the end consumer to cable, satellite, and telecom operators, movie and TV production houses, and everyone in between by the balls, which is exactly what will happen if they get their way. (And submission to SMPTE *hardly* means anything. Standards are standards AFTER they've been vetted by standards bodies, have had the patent searches and pools completed, etc., and have been, you know, actually approved. Not when they've been "submitted for consideration". Further, that gesture is nothing more than an attempt to get pinhead PHB-type managers and executives on board with Microsoft when their technical underlings are pulling for open standards like H.264 - then Microsoft can shoot back to the management, Hey, we're just as open as the MPEG family of standards! Look, we even submitted our codec to SMPTE! It's not our fault they take so long to approve things! Do you really want all that H-dot-whatever-gobbledeygook that your oddball IT guys are talking about? After all, that's what *Apple* uses. You don't want an Apple technology, do you? Go with us; you know Microsoft is the right choice for your 18-million-customer cable service! Utter bullshit. And ignores the fact that all of the codec improvements and tools will NOT be open; the SMPTE submission is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put Windows Media everywhere as well by claiming to be "open" when they're anything but.)

My read is that this is a pathetic attempt to link "Linux" and "union" in the minds of IT management. The article is absurd on it's face. It relys on a redefinition of the words "Linux" and "union" in order to make it work, thus rending the entire ridiculous screed meaningless.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

-- Lewis Carroll, "Alice Through The Looking Glass"

... and we can be sure that Mr. Pretenderle will be chasing down those young linux whippersnappers in his beloved Ferrari.

I really like Apple's iChat 'solution' but it simply doesn't play well with others which makes it worthless (unless everyone you know owns a mac... which they inevitably don't)

Not so. Windows AIM users can video chat with OSX iChat users.

Can you measure and compare what the RAS level for a server is? The Software (OS and application) and Hardware in combination would play a factor in the RAS level. I would like to see a mathematical formula based on MTBF for hardware components (especially hard drives, power supplies) and OS and application software quality quantification(1) to create a RASmark level. It would help make server buying decisions less seat-of-the-pants so you can decide whether or not it's worth it to get the redundant power supply option and/or RAID level for a server to get to a required RAS level for your needs.

(1) It's difficult but not impossible to quantify software quality. There's plenty of real-world usage that can be surveyed to cancel out admin competence levels (another difficult item to measure) and other factors. Have to beware of zealots and a certain monopolist's FUD.

Yes, I can't wait to see what /. posts to top this...I guess Mary Jo is really to blame though. I found this talkback comment amusing: http://www.eweek.com/talkback_details/0,2278,s=259 84&a=152824,00.asp?m=8123

I dont see this as 'startling'. It is a well know fact that Apple computers are safer than those that run Windows... The fact that Mr.Otellini said that is not 'startling' either. He is probably saying this because there are rumours that Apple may be using Intel chips... http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1819286,00.as p

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1819422,00 .asp

Classic ASP apps can run under a .NET enabled server. EWeek should eat they dog food they're writing about.

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1788844,00.as p According to this article, leading anti-spyware vendors are working with the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology to develop guidelines for defining spyware.
When the very definition of spyware is hanging in balance, I dont see how they can strictly enforce the law.
My 2c.

... facts are facts. ;)

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Here is the question I submitted:

During the Microsoft anti-trust trial, Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms, testified [1] that there were security flaws in Windows so grave that to reveal the source code would be to threaten US national security, including specifically US armed forces in Afghanistan. Within a couple of years, Microsoft was providing [2] that same source code to foreign governments including China's.

Is it safe to assume that Microsoft was able to fix all of these flaws before revealing the code? If so, can you provide any details on the nature of the flaws and on the process to identify and fix them? E.g., did it require large scale changes to Windows' architecture?

1. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,5264,00.asp
2. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/sep0 4/09-19OfficeGSPPR.asp

Here's the news story.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,181 5438,00.asp

And, here's why I, anyway, think anorexic XP, aka Eiger, will only end up helping the acceptance of Linux desktops.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1815779,00.as p

Steven

Earlier rumours said that 8.0 was going to be based on Internet Explorer.

It sounds like you're thinking of the AOL Browser, which is based on IE.

A US Federal bill is also in congress, the The Spyblock Act. Reading the reactions to it there seems to be a realization that these acts are somewhat toothless. I assume they are being passed to show that lawmakers "care" and "are listening" but is doesn't seem like anyone has enough imagination to really address the problem yet.

Daryl McBride makes a statement about 'exposing' the Groklaw writer for what she is (attempt to discredit) on or about the 13th of April. O'Gara carries out that attempt - but fails miserably some time afterwards - as we all saw explode in /. this week.

Is that a mere coincidence? Are we paranoid to think there is any linkage between SCO and Ms. O'Gara? Or could it be that she took his statement as the lead for a story? Who knows?

However, it is incorrect to paint the FOSS movement as a bunch of criminals. On the contrary, that community has seen how monies from the convicted monopoly Microsoft, have gotten into the SCO treasury via the Canopy Group - to fight free and open source software. We have also seen people involved with the case meet untimely death under strange circumstances.

You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Then again, it could all just be coincidental. I'll leave determination of that as an exersize for the reader...

one which almost resulted in Apple going bankrupt during the 90's (or whenever it was that Gates had to pump in money to keep Apple afloat).

... facts are facts. ;)

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

... according to the eWeek article from the 13th. They also say it goes back as far as NT4, but 2k3 isn't mentioned at all.

Yeah, talk about FUD -- Slashdot distributes more FUD than Microsoft ever did.

Read the following article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1815784,00.as p?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594

There are a few points to notice:
1.) The vulnerability has been PRIVATELY disclosed, meaning that the exploit is not openly known by everyone the way Firefox's was a couple of weeks ago.

2.) There is no reason to believe that it will take as long as mid June. According to the above link, "Under normal circumstances, Microsoft patches are released on a monthly cycle, but in cases of emergency, the company could release an out-of-cycle update"

This is just another case of classic Slashdot anti-Microsoft bias.

He said Microsoft was alerted to the first vulnerability March 16.

That bug was found in default installations of IE and Outlook and could allow malicious code to be executed, contingent upon minimal user interaction, he explained.

Default install problem. Minimal user interaction.

According to security alert aggregator Secunia, more than 30 percent of the security holes found in IE remain unpatched.

...more than 30 percent of the security holes found in IE remain unpatched. Last I saw, that was 13 known holes (not necessarily rated critical).

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/050512/#story1

As of today, Secunia reports that there are still 19 unpatched security flaws in IE, the most severe of which is rated "highly critical." Firefox has only 4 unpatched flaws, all of which are rated "less critical" or "not critical," the lowest severity rating. Opera has none.

Oh. It's 19 now.

Sorry. You're right. Nothing for *you* to see here.

Except that IBM doesn't make Thinkpads any more. They sold that business to Lenovo last week.

Sayeth the Ziff Davis e-mail:

Firefox Web Browser Under Attack

Major security flaws just uncovered in the popular Firefox browser have its creators rushing to fill the gaps. The vulnerabilities are called "extremely critical" and were leaked to the Web a few days ago. Ouch. For details on what the problem entails, and where to find the patches, check out our story. Firefox may be good, but it's not perfect!

And the linked to story Zero-Day Firefox Exploit Sends Mozilla Scrambling

'Mozilla's public acknowledgement of the vulnerabilities includes a chilling warning that an attacker could combine the flaws to execute malicious code without user interaction.'

Chilling. Hmmm.

how many window users can maintain their windows box properly

Apparently not even Sir William H. Gates III can*. He has been hit by malware and spyware in the past.

*Details in the fifth paragraph.

>If someone could explain how this relates to OO.o's use of Java, I'd appreciate it.

As I say in the story--in a one sentence remark--it's because in both cases, some people are objecting to the use of proprietary software in an open source project.

It's not like this is a new battle between free software advocates and open-source supporters. The one most people probably know best is the use of TrollTech's QT in KDE. For more on that, see:

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2 .0-development/ch19lev1sec2.html

For the original version of the OO.o story see:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1813986,00.as p

Steven

oh. wait a minute. you're a fucking idiot.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1774025,00.as p

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/apple_ lawsuit_dangerous_for_free_speech_or_pr_hype/

http://news.com.com/Apple+lawsuit+A+case+of+sour+g rapes/2010-1047_3-5611497.html?tag=nefd.ac

http://news.com.com/Apple+sues+over+loose+Tiger/21 00-1047_3-5500034.html

The Linux community likes to hide behind the mantra of free and open
software for all and as such has the twisted mindset that all software
should be free for everyone. This should come as no surprise seeing
that the Linux community seems to take pride in stealing anything they
can get their hands on and breaking laws designed to protect IP at the
same time.

Linux users have been advocating downloading Microsoft True Type Fonts
for years mostly because their own fonts and font system in general
has been so horrific that Linux screen fonts in most stock installs
are almost unreadable. Of course they will claim that Linux fonts are
great but if that were really the case why is the internet clogged
with Linux Font DeUglification documents written by Linux users?

They even have documents that give a step by step procedure for
stealing the Microsoft fonts and installing them on Linux systems!
Notice in particular the instructions for the Tahoma font.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/truetype.html
http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/

Next we have Linux users violating the EULA for the X-Box and
tinkering with it so that it can run Linux.
Why on earth any sane person would want to take a bitching game
machine like X-box and ruin it by installing Linux is a mystery to me.

http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/index.php

http://xbox-linux.sourceforge.net/faq.php

Pay particular attention to the question about it being illegal and
how they avoid answering the question.

They are also doing the same thing with Sony Play station as well.

http://playstation2-linux.com/faq.php

None of this is going to hold up in a court of law and the Linux
people who are leading these projects are looking for some serious
trouble should Microsoft and Sony decide to pursue this matter.

Finally we have the suit filed by SCO which claims that the Linux
community at large has incorporated stolen code into it's open source
programs.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,936269,00.asp

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Linux
movement from the day Linux wrote the kernel.

The Linux community has proven themselves to be a fight to the end,
steal whatever can be stolen from big business because it is big
business that is killing Linux.

The Linux community has absolutely no respect for the property of
others and will resort to any type of clandestine tactics to steal
whatever isn't cemented down all in the good name of Linux.

So if you are thinking of betting your business on Linux software, you
had better think it over carefully, because if SCO should win, Linux
will be out of business.
And if SCO should lose, do you really think it is wise to bet your
entire business on software that is supported by a community that
promotes stealing and in fact is full of thieves?

Food for thought.

Sure, the flash memory business was a loser. But, according to the article, the cpu sales were only $750 million for Q1 2005. AMD's market share for Q1 2005 was 16.9 percent of a worldwide market of approximately 120 million units. That means that AMD's average selling price was only about $37. Obviously, AMD is selling mostly the ultra-cheap Semprons and only a relative tiny handful of the $500+ units. We can rattle on about how great that new powerful chip is that just came out but no one ever seems to actually buy them in the kind of volume that might allow an innovative company like AMD to survive in business.

We can go on here about how great AMD is doing and about how Intel is struggling but it is not the truth. Intel and Dell smile every time they read that as they set new revenue and profit records every quarter. Why does the truth matter? Because AMD is making some extremely good products that deserve to be selling far better than they have been. We should be asking WHY they are not selling rather than just pretending that it isn't so. AMD is in a business where huge capital investments are needed every year. AMD's access to capital will dry up if they can't show that they can make substantial profits from sales of cpus when they have VERY competitive products. The lender's will ask 'if not now, when?' and there will not be a good answer. The end result is that Intel is successfully choking off AMD's air supply even while we are here talking about how good the latest AMD chip is.

... facts are facts. ;)

FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD:
NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)

OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Zero-Day Firefox Exploit Sends Mozilla Scrambling
For the fourth time in three months, major security flaws in the upstart Firefox Web browser have pushed volunteers at the Mozilla Foundation into damage-control mode.

THIS is being touted as a 'more secure' alternative to IE?

Mm... no, I don't think so.

The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports, and Homeland Security wants to issue RFID-outfitted IDs to foreign visitors who enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

I believe there was indeed an exploit in the Microsoft MSHTML web page rendering control which permitted the execution of files without user intervention (remember that the Microsoft Internet Explorer interface, iexplore.exe, is in itself only a GUI with the MSHTML control embedded, which is why it weighs only around 90 KB; the MSHTML rendering control is further embedded into the Windows operating system, so deleting iexplore.exe does not get rid of it, only of the Internet Explorer interface). That MSHTML control is used by myriad programs including Outlook and Outlook Express, so it had to be updated. (A hasty Google Search turns up this article which is of interest.)

When you read Groklaw, you have to remember one basic fact about the western legal process: The only thing that matters is your evidence.

Bias is irellevant to the law. The attorneys on one side of a case will be firmly biased one way, and the attorneys on the other side will be firmly biased the other way.

Groklaw is 'open' in the sense that all its evidence is right out there for everyone to see, no matter which way their bias happens to point. This is different from SCO, which has still failed to identify the code it claims has been misappropriated.

And yes, Groklaw does have a clear bias against SCO. It began as an attempt to counter the FUD-storm that SCO was pumping into the court of public opinion. Remember the "millions of lines of code"? The "team of MIT researchers"? Darl's Open Letters too the Linux Community?

SCO went into this litigation playing a very hard flavor of hardball. They made large, bold, easy to understand claims, and left the tech community to respond with arguments that were logically correct, but too complicated to win any mindshare. And it worked. For probably the first year of the case, SCO's side of the story was the one that was heard in the mainstream media.

So PJ began reading documents and collecting evidence, and embarked on the long, slow process of chipping away at the FUD one little bit at a time. Over time, she developed a reputation for countering SCO's claims reliably, thoroughly, and on the basis of hard evidence. Eventually, the mainstream press started to pay attention, and started treating SCO's claims more critically than they had before.

At present, SCO has the FUD machine pointed at Groklaw and PJ herself. Within the last month, Darl was quoted in this article saying:

"if you look at the reality of the Pamela Jones situation, you have to conclude that all is not as appeared as it is in Groklaw land. We appreciate that many media sources disagree with us, but they're accountable. We think you need to know who's behind the news."

and:

"we're digging into who Pam Jones is, and we're close to the bottom."

because they'd really like people to see Groklaw as a haven for anti-SCO fanboys, and question (or better yet, ignore) all the evidence that Groklaw has accumulated. Then SCO could get an unfettered run at the media again.

And if they get it, I invite you to consider just how 'open' SCO's comments to the media will be.

Caldera/SCO's CEO at the time has acknowledged that Monterey would involve both UNIX and Linux, which were strategic to both companies at the time. To say that SCO's motivation for entering Project Monterey was either to counter the threat of Linux, as Orlowski does, or a stopgap measure on the road to full migration to Linux, per Jones, is a bit of a reach.

Thats just an invitation for traders to push the price up before he gets to make a bid - corporate raids like this have to be executed quickly.

It would make sense for Sun to go private though, as long as the stock market expects than to behave like a Dell and produce incremental growth every quarter rather than the R&D firm which has peaks and troughs that they are its going to be a nightmare for them. They appear to have halted the slide, they just need to start regaining customers now.

And like it or loathe it, Solaris 10 is damn impressive, the opterton boxes are very cool - and we have yet to see the Andy Bechtolsheim designed boxes (Bechtolsheim is a visionary and could turn Sun by himself - he was one of the first investors in Google back in 1998, silicon valley legend says that he cut a cheque for 200k on his doorstep when he was first approached by Brin and Page, he founded Granite systems (sold to Cisco for 220 million) and headed up Ciscos gigabit networking businesss) and the teasers about the Niagra chips (e-week article /. managed to miss my submission of) sound very interesting.

They have a hell of a lot of clever people working there, its just the management layers that are a bit of a problem - from what I've heard the problem is in the middle management layers, and the useless idiots they have in sales and marketing, not at the top with the possible exeception of McNealy.

SCO has lawyers. those lawyers are not stupid. i'd wager they know a little more about this case, and law in general, than the average poster in this thread. they do not want to lose money. SCO does not want to lose money, or at least take a very bad risk on this.

Regardless of how reasonable these arguments may seem, the facts controvert them:

1) SCO's lawyers, like most, are paid whether they win or lose.

2) While it still looked like they might possibly have a case, SCO's revenues and stock price shot up and SCO was infused with large investments.

3) SCO's core server OS business started crumbling long ago under pressure from both Linux and Windows.

So, you see, SCO almost literally had nothing to lose. If they didn't do something, Linux (or Windows) would take their Unix server business. By making asses of themselves, they'll at least continue to receive large paychecks for a few more years. Besides, it was entirely plausible that IBM would have just bought the whole company to shut them up, in which case, jackpot!