Slashdot Mirror

Actually for us it's a business concern. We were evaluating whether or not to allow Android device to connect to our corporate intranet and decided against it for that very reason./.../

With the iPhone, we can force users to upgrade to the latest OS version, and give them a time window to comply. /.../

Yes, we (as an internal IT company) used to think along those lines.. but to us, the iOS family itself is fast becoming the last straw to the perimeter security model, where we controlled what devices are permitted inside, and trusted them completely. This isn't going to fly much longer. First of all, without infeasible expansion in IT staffing, we are unable to match the quick evolution in the mobile segment: count on no more than 18 months' lifecycles for mobile devices, before being replaced by something which would have to be re-integrated with our standards and network security. Second, the devices aren't company provided any more: the ugly 'consumerization' word is rearing its equally ugly head. People (for now, top management and early adopters) want to bring their own devices, be they smartphones or laptops, to work. We've been fighting a holding action against that trend, mostly on the grounds of security, and to some extent supportability, but few of us think that battle can be ultimately won.

Instead of restricting end users' devices to perpetually out-dated models, our integration, provisioning and security model is tenatively moving towards focusing on their interfaces (communications protocols, information standards), and reducing trust towards devices. For the near future, we'll have to restrict access to confidential information to company-approved devices, and setup network malware and DoS protection as part of the open segments of our internal company networks. In the mid-to-longer term (2+ years), we hope to see increased maturity in virtualization, allowing us to push out a trusted virtual desktop/smartphone image, to which users can switch when sensitive information has to be processed. You can understand our happiness over this announcement, happening a bit faster than we were expecting (even if they aren't at the product stage yet).

Someone else already did. This is the guide I followed, but note that you do not need to patch VirtualBox if you're running 3.2.8 or later as this version includes support for OS X out of the box. You tell it you're running OS X Server, not FreeBSD as the instructions state.

Pay special attention to the directions for getting the NIC running; they're toward the end.

Note that there is no support for desktop effects.

http://www.taranfx.com/install-mac-os-in-virtualbox

Correct me if I'm wrong but what "hacker" culture does facebook have.

Well, in addition to having oldschool keyboards that still have question marks, Facebook employees have an example of hacker culture in releasing their HipHop PHP runtime to the world.

Software patch cannot fix signal attenuation from a hand.

Actually, a software patch *can* help when it changes how the software-tunable capacitors in the antenna system respond. Not that there's anything about doing that in this particular press release, but you're being a bit under-optimistic here.

You love open and hate closed, so you bought a phone with Sense UI? A proprietary closed source UI slapped over an open product? Umm...

Anyway, since you're non US I'm assuming you have a GSM hero? Here's 2.1 for you.

You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.

I plan to install Ubuntu on my Mac, but unless Microsoft stops requiring Activation and all the spyware I will not install Windows on any computer I own if I don't have to. Activation, Windows Genuine Advantage or WGA, phoning home, and other spyware are some of the reasons why I switched from MS Windows.

What disappointed me about the VirtualBox article is that it doesn't say how to install OS X in a VM. I plan to set up my Mac to dualboot and I want to install VirtualBox or another VM in both Snow Leopard and Ubuntu so I can run one while booted into the other OS. A setup like that would be quicker and better when either the second OS is only needed for a short period, intermittently, or both are needed. Other Guests has some threads about installing OSX as a guest, one provided the How to Install Snow Leopard on VirtualBox link however that's for VirtualBox on Windows.

You should give it a try some time, maybe run it in your virtualbox.

I'd try NT4 but the version I have is for DEC Alphas.

Falcon

Is that really the case, though? The article was a little light on details with this acceleration, for all I know it could be DirectCompute based which would not work on Intel graphics and might end up being slower than IE8 on such systems.

Definitely, it's not just performance either, they've added support for several things in HTML5, CSS3, SVG etc that people have been wanting. They've really shown a lot of effort in trying to make IE not suck so much.

I wasn't aware the Javascript had improved that much in IE9. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, in a multi-core system they're actually using one core to compile Javascript in the background before it gets executed (so it's executing compiled code). The article I was reading was light on technical details, but it seemed to imply that it was being compiled to ASM or some other CPU-dependent language. Maybe just similar to how the .NET CLR works though.

It looks like there's a short summary here:

http://www.taranfx.com/ie9-vs-chrome-vs-firefox-vs-opera
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/IE9-vs-Firefox-3-7-and-3-6-Chrome-5-0-and-4-0-and-Opera-10-50-3.png/

I thought I remembered a big test including IE9, but I think I'm remembering this piece from Tom's, which shows IE8 in last, but not very far behind Firefox.

In any case, I'm more impressed with Microsoft's work on IE9 than I've been by anything they've done recently (although I haven't played around with Windows 7 yet). I was happy with IE8 just because of the progress it showed from IE7, but IE9 is way beyond that, especially in terms of standards support. It won't make me stop using Opera, but it will definitely help me in my job developing web apps.

The thing that really pisses me off is the number of clients I have who still use IE6 (Avnet and Budget Truck, I'm looking at you), what's that 9 years old now? Thankfully, we don't need to test our applications with IE6 anymore, at this point we're responding to IE6 issues on an as-reported basis.

Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?

Bing's problems are well known.

Could you provide a reason you've been living under a rock for the past 6 months, but suddenly decided to pop out to troll for MS?

Actually, this news story suggests that you have to have certain HTML/JS files planted in the user's shared folder for the flaw to work. So it's even less dangerous than implied (not that you shouldn't worry about it).