When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.
Of course, this was MSN search in those days, so there were only about 14 people's search records apart from a few million searches for "google toolbar"
That's right, the new apple magic mouse will have apps and an app store available for it. For only a few bucks you'll be able to purchase games to play on your mouse...
Of course, that could be a source of attack too. Want plenty of time to access a system, use a directory based attack full of random passwords, lock every account out of the system in minutes if properly delivered. Plenty of chances to cause chaos and possibly breach other systems in the meantime.
It's aware of 256 cores, nothing about utilizing the 256. I'm guessing it probably has more to do with licensing, it needs to detect the cores properly so it can bill you for them individually.
Microsoft shows signs of support after the article relating the amount of memory usage for processing the same data between OO.o 2.0 and Microsoft Office. MS hates to be outshown when it comes to bloated products and are rushing to defeat the competition in this matter. Undoubtedly with the new ODF support they will be able to increase RAM utilisation by a factor of 10.
There is a potential offering for ReactOS where it can improve things for mankind. Microsoft has been shoe-horning Windows into every possible device it can find and many hardware manufacturers and software developers are feeling the pressure to combat this.
With a Windows work-alike that's open source it'd give an alternative for these devices which would require a minimum of additional investment to cut the Microsoft cord for their products. Sure they could use Linux or a multitude of other options, but none currently have the same option for reduced difficulty in transitioning.
It can hardly hurt to have another option for an operating system. Linux and BSD don't necessarily meet every need and there's no point belittling anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream and go to them. The payoff is not always immediately visible with any project.
Don't be so negative about the possibility of the constitution being ammended to provide responsibility for voting protocols and equipment to the federal government. After all, the country would surely benefit from a standardized, inauditable electronic voting system provided by Diebold (they're run by a Republican which makes them completely honest).
With the upcoming Republican party control of the executive and judicial systems it'd be easy for them to act in the best interests of everyone....
You're talking about people with building in a bad location, this whole line of questioning is talking about an intelligent species and humanity's intelligence is frequently brought into question.
Apple's server are targetting a specific market, they're using what amounts to a trick (that is using lots of (IDE channels) to acheive greater performance. While it works in this particular instance, it is not necessarily effective in every area. The XServe (even with the XServe RAID) is hardly suited for an enterprise data storage center,
Designing a system involves considerable trade-offs, Apple just chose a certain set of features balanced for a particular market.
Not really, because the quantum mechanical answer to the question would be "did the tree actually fall while no one was around, or did it merely change position after the human observed it?"
Then again, one could argue that the tree might not have fallen at all and still be standing. Or, it is both standing and fallen.
Darwin as Apple uses it in MacOS X is released under the APSL, however, this is not under the APSL, but rather a GPL'd version of the same things, it is GNU Darwin, not Apple Darwin. Essentially the same core, but different audiences/developers.
The reason why it doesn't work is because there are almost no drivers for Wintel hardware there. The software is able to run on such hardware, if there are drivers, but at present the only drivers it had for x86 were for a single Intel box that someone within Apple had lying in a corner somewhere.
Because it lacks driver support on x86 it does not work, however, all of the code can be compiled to x86 and will run if someone makes the drivers for the system. Most of the open source operating system's started out in a similar way, there were only drivers for one type of hardware until someone started creating new drivers.
Yes, Apple did get part of their interface ideas from Xerox. They also made significant changes to the interface and put in a considerable amount of development time on it. Apple also paid Xerox for the opportunity to look through and get ideas. Xerox did sue Apple, but over only one single image that was too much like one Xerox had, of course, Xerox waited too long for that claim to be defensible in court.
One of the reasons why Apple has to stop the proliferation of simple themes is because if they don't it could transform the entire Aqua look into something public domain. Then anyone could copy it almost exactly and use it in a commercial product specifically targeted to steal sales away from Apple, and legally Apple wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Anything not protected very easily becomes free game.
There should be a limit to what they choose, I believe they're focusing on things that mimic closely the look and behavior of the Aqua interface. If an interface used green for the coloring, positioned the function buttons differently, and changed the graphics sizes it wouldn't be as big of a deal. However, in many of these themse they're exactly copying the Aqua interface in looks since they can't always copy the behaviors. In fact, many of them were made using images of screenshots from MacOS X.
From personal experience I'd have to say that your best solutions will probably be commercial. Many of the open source options have flukes as you mention. You could spend a lot of time trying to find just the right combination of Open Source solutions to get things working for you, or you could go with a relatively inexpensive commercial option.
One of the options would be to get a Snap Server as someone mentioned. These hook up to the network easily, they require little maintenance, they work well and they would solve your problem fairly well. Snap servers are also relatively inexpensive.
Another option is the dedicated server appliance type of thing. These are often preconfigured to do just the kind of file sharing. If you want to support open source development, these often use open source tools, but precompiled, tweaked and made to work easily.
Another option is to get an older Mac and use AppleShare IP. AppleShare IP does support filesharing for Windows and Mac clients and does a reasonably good job at it. AS:IP is easy to setup and doesn't need a lot of equipment (it can run well on a G3 iMac or Tower).
For a more expensive option that would require waiting you can look to OS X Server, which will support filesharing between a variety of systems, including providing NFS shares as well as SMB and AppleShare. However, OSX Server will not be available until March and will require newer hardware to function well. AppleShare IP is being transferred into OSX Server, so that will be the eventual official upgrade path should you choose to go with AS:IP now, however, there will undoubtedly be other options and possibly the Open Source products will be stable and robust enough to meet your needs then that you could install LinuxPPC or one of the BSD's on the PowerMac box being used as the AS:IP server.
I don't have anywhere near that trouble with QT4 under Windows, and that's running it on a Pentium 133 with 48MB's of RAM under Win98. I have more trouble with Real Player than QT..5fps video under RP, can easily do 20fps under QT.
However, the interface uses too many bloated DirectX API's causing it to be much slower than it should be. If Apple had stayed with the older interface it would have run much more smoothly, instead they added a lot more overhead which made things slower than before. The speed improvements made for 4.1 scarcely reduce the speed problems they created.
Given that MPEG4 isn't finalized as a standard, there's really no reason for Apple to release it. Since the Quicktime framework allows for Apple to easily add new codecs to it (and MPEG4 uses Quicktime as a model) it will be possible (and very likely) that when the standard is finalized, Quicktime will support it.
Quicktime on Mac already handles MPEG1, MPEG2 support is included in QT 5. If it offers significant improvements over the Sorenson Codecs MPEG4 could be used as the encoding instead of Sorenson and made usable on all platforms that QT is supported on (QT5 might run on Linux by the time the standard is finalized).
Apple almost never makes public statements about future products until they are soon to be released, OS X being the exception as they've made many, many announcements about it over the years.
That aside, I do think a port of Quicktime to Linux is quite likely, however, they're probably not focusing on it, and when they do decide to focus on it they'll have to hire new people or re-educate old ones. Unless of course they use WINE to create a port of the Windows version.
Given that WINE is unable at present to run the current version of Quicktime it seems unlikely to be a choice for Apple, given the development work to port the Windows version will likely be as much work as creating a new client from scratch (which would be better since they could release the player as source-code, although the codecs would have to be binary).
Motorola's G5 is supposed to be a multi-core chip. However, the design of the chip and the time that it will be available means that it *should* not be any more expensive. However, given Motorola's track record with the G4 any details of the roadmap may not be highly accurate.
The G4e, G4+ and 7400+ are all the same thing known by different names. This is not a multi-core chip, but a processor that adds several enhancements to the G4. For example, it deepens the pipelines allowing for higher clock speeds, it adds extra AltiVec units to further increase AltiVec speed enhancements and adds an extra integer unit. The G4+ is supposed to be in test production right now, but there is no telling when it will actually be available. I think Motorola has turn to the G4+ in the hopes that it will save them from their follies with the G4. The original design had several flaws that have restricted the clock speed and even with all of Motorola's work to correct the problems, they are still having trouble.
Well, this is referring to the IBM G5 chip. IBM and Motorola actually differ on their processor numbers even though they use the same name. The G5 produced by IBM will actually be a variant based on the Power4 (IBM G4) architecture. Motorola's G5 will be a multi-core architecture based around the Motorola G4.
AltiVec is a technology developed by Motorola. It's primary usage is for accelerated processing of stream data. It performs the same operation over and over on a stream of data. The main purpose for Motorola's development of AltiVec was to be of use in the embedded market, which is their primary cash source. Since IBM focuses mostly on the high-end market such as servers, this wouldn't be as useful for them. The specialized acceleration provided by AltiVec wouldn't provide as much benefit as raw generic processing power would.
It's somewhat unlikely that Apple would move to the IBM G5 for anything other than a high-end server architecture. It might show up in several workstations, but they've invested too much in AltiVec to make that transition. It's a lot more likely that they will use Motorola's G5 chip, possibly getting IBM to manufacture them.
IBM has a lot more experience working with the copper wiring process as well as Silicon-on-insulator. They're able to produce significantly better yields than Motorola, which is the cause of this entire problem.
Most of the code morphing is handled in a software layer. To cut out the silicon overhead of such a device. Because of how the Crusoe's code-morphing is designed (with caching of translated commands) it isn't as slow as the usual software emulation. However, it would still be slower than hardware execution.
It would be possible to add new processor types and instructions, since, that doesn't require a change in the silicon, but a change in the code-morphing software. However, the more different kinds of instruction sets the code has to manage, the slower the system gets. If you only want to have one type of processor instruction set running at a time you experience only the emulation penalty to performance.
Of course, to run MacOS X it would require not only changes to the processor, but also some layer to address various differences in the hardware. Either that, or it would require adjustments made to the kernel and a recompile for that hardware. However, if Apple chose to support Crusoe that would not be a significant difficulty for them.
Each new platform would require changes made to the OS or some type of compatibility layer. While it is possible for individuals to accomplish tasks like that through open source, it would be considerably slower than if manufacturer's were to develop those options. However, in most case it's not worth it for them to put in the effort, seeing as they're not likely to make a significant enough profit right away.
In fact, one has to acknowledge that it may never be worth their while to do so. The Crusoe has yet to be real-world tested on a wide-scale, until then it's impossible to say whether or not it will succeed.
Even if it does turn out to be a significantly better processor than others, that doesn't mean it will be successful. Intel managed to keep AMD shut out on the low-end for a long time, even though the AMD chips were often better performing.
Slashdot Mirror
When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.
Of course, this was MSN search in those days, so there were only about 14 people's search records apart from a few million searches for "google toolbar"
Clearly they're looking for restaurants to find the best way to cook an apple.
That's right, the new apple magic mouse will have apps and an app store available for it. For only a few bucks you'll be able to purchase games to play on your mouse...
Of course, that could be a source of attack too. Want plenty of time to access a system, use a directory based attack full of random passwords, lock every account out of the system in minutes if properly delivered. Plenty of chances to cause chaos and possibly breach other systems in the meantime.
It's aware of 256 cores, nothing about utilizing the 256. I'm guessing it probably has more to do with licensing, it needs to detect the cores properly so it can bill you for them individually.
Redundant Array of Self-Replicating Pornographic Storage
That's the site of the first Super Walmart on mars, they're preparing for destroying the martian economy after they ruin ours.
Microsoft shows signs of support after the article relating the amount of memory usage for processing the same data between OO.o 2.0 and Microsoft Office. MS hates to be outshown when it comes to bloated products and are rushing to defeat the competition in this matter. Undoubtedly with the new ODF support they will be able to increase RAM utilisation by a factor of 10.
There is a potential offering for ReactOS where it can improve things for mankind. Microsoft has been shoe-horning Windows into every possible device it can find and many hardware manufacturers and software developers are feeling the pressure to combat this.
With a Windows work-alike that's open source it'd give an alternative for these devices which would require a minimum of additional investment to cut the Microsoft cord for their products. Sure they could use Linux or a multitude of other options, but none currently have the same option for reduced difficulty in transitioning.
It can hardly hurt to have another option for an operating system. Linux and BSD don't necessarily meet every need and there's no point belittling anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream and go to them. The payoff is not always immediately visible with any project.
Don't be so negative about the possibility of the constitution being ammended to provide responsibility for voting protocols and equipment to the federal government. After all, the country would surely benefit from a standardized, inauditable electronic voting system provided by Diebold (they're run by a Republican which makes them completely honest).
With the upcoming Republican party control of the executive and judicial systems it'd be easy for them to act in the best interests of everyone....
You think the CIA can operate without software that manages photographs in a chronilogical order, how about the FBI.
Next they'll be patenting the organization of paper. And, since they used Clippy, they'll claim a patent on paper clips which aren't in use.
If the DOJ makes another move against them, MS countersues the government
You're talking about people with building in a bad location, this whole line of questioning is talking about an intelligent species and humanity's intelligence is frequently brought into question.
Apple's server are targetting a specific market, they're using what amounts to a trick (that is using lots of (IDE channels) to acheive greater performance. While it works in this particular instance, it is not necessarily effective in every area. The XServe (even with the XServe RAID) is hardly suited for an enterprise data storage center,
Designing a system involves considerable trade-offs, Apple just chose a certain set of features balanced for a particular market.
Not really, because the quantum mechanical answer to the question would be "did the tree actually fall while no one was around, or did it merely change position after the human observed it?"
Then again, one could argue that the tree might not have fallen at all and still be standing. Or, it is both standing and fallen.
Darwin as Apple uses it in MacOS X is released under the APSL, however, this is not under the APSL, but rather a GPL'd version of the same things, it is GNU Darwin, not Apple Darwin. Essentially the same core, but different audiences/developers.
The reason why it doesn't work is because there are almost no drivers for Wintel hardware there. The software is able to run on such hardware, if there are drivers, but at present the only drivers it had for x86 were for a single Intel box that someone within Apple had lying in a corner somewhere.
Because it lacks driver support on x86 it does not work, however, all of the code can be compiled to x86 and will run if someone makes the drivers for the system. Most of the open source operating system's started out in a similar way, there were only drivers for one type of hardware until someone started creating new drivers.
Yes, Apple did get part of their interface ideas from Xerox. They also made significant changes to the interface and put in a considerable amount of development time on it. Apple also paid Xerox for the opportunity to look through and get ideas. Xerox did sue Apple, but over only one single image that was too much like one Xerox had, of course, Xerox waited too long for that claim to be defensible in court.
One of the reasons why Apple has to stop the proliferation of simple themes is because if they don't it could transform the entire Aqua look into something public domain. Then anyone could copy it almost exactly and use it in a commercial product specifically targeted to steal sales away from Apple, and legally Apple wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Anything not protected very easily becomes free game.
There should be a limit to what they choose, I believe they're focusing on things that mimic closely the look and behavior of the Aqua interface. If an interface used green for the coloring, positioned the function buttons differently, and changed the graphics sizes it wouldn't be as big of a deal. However, in many of these themse they're exactly copying the Aqua interface in looks since they can't always copy the behaviors. In fact, many of them were made using images of screenshots from MacOS X.
From personal experience I'd have to say that your best solutions will probably be commercial. Many of the open source options have flukes as you mention. You could spend a lot of time trying to find just the right combination of Open Source solutions to get things working for you, or you could go with a relatively inexpensive commercial option.
One of the options would be to get a Snap Server as someone mentioned. These hook up to the network easily, they require little maintenance, they work well and they would solve your problem fairly well. Snap servers are also relatively inexpensive.
Another option is the dedicated server appliance type of thing. These are often preconfigured to do just the kind of file sharing. If you want to support open source development, these often use open source tools, but precompiled, tweaked and made to work easily.
Another option is to get an older Mac and use AppleShare IP. AppleShare IP does support filesharing for Windows and Mac clients and does a reasonably good job at it. AS:IP is easy to setup and doesn't need a lot of equipment (it can run well on a G3 iMac or Tower).
For a more expensive option that would require waiting you can look to OS X Server, which will support filesharing between a variety of systems, including providing NFS shares as well as SMB and AppleShare. However, OSX Server will not be available until March and will require newer hardware to function well. AppleShare IP is being transferred into OSX Server, so that will be the eventual official upgrade path should you choose to go with AS:IP now, however, there will undoubtedly be other options and possibly the Open Source products will be stable and robust enough to meet your needs then that you could install LinuxPPC or one of the BSD's on the PowerMac box being used as the AS:IP server.
I don't have anywhere near that trouble with QT4 under Windows, and that's running it on a Pentium 133 with 48MB's of RAM under Win98. I have more trouble with Real Player than QT. .5fps video under RP, can easily do 20fps under QT.
However, the interface uses too many bloated DirectX API's causing it to be much slower than it should be. If Apple had stayed with the older interface it would have run much more smoothly, instead they added a lot more overhead which made things slower than before. The speed improvements made for 4.1 scarcely reduce the speed problems they created.
Given that MPEG4 isn't finalized as a standard, there's really no reason for Apple to release it. Since the Quicktime framework allows for Apple to easily add new codecs to it (and MPEG4 uses Quicktime as a model) it will be possible (and very likely) that when the standard is finalized, Quicktime will support it.
Quicktime on Mac already handles MPEG1, MPEG2 support is included in QT 5. If it offers significant improvements over the Sorenson Codecs MPEG4 could be used as the encoding instead of Sorenson and made usable on all platforms that QT is supported on (QT5 might run on Linux by the time the standard is finalized).
Apple almost never makes public statements about future products until they are soon to be released, OS X being the exception as they've made many, many announcements about it over the years. That aside, I do think a port of Quicktime to Linux is quite likely, however, they're probably not focusing on it, and when they do decide to focus on it they'll have to hire new people or re-educate old ones. Unless of course they use WINE to create a port of the Windows version. Given that WINE is unable at present to run the current version of Quicktime it seems unlikely to be a choice for Apple, given the development work to port the Windows version will likely be as much work as creating a new client from scratch (which would be better since they could release the player as source-code, although the codecs would have to be binary).
Motorola's G5 is supposed to be a multi-core chip. However, the design of the chip and the time that it will be available means that it *should* not be any more expensive. However, given Motorola's track record with the G4 any details of the roadmap may not be highly accurate.
The G4e, G4+ and 7400+ are all the same thing known by different names. This is not a multi-core chip, but a processor that adds several enhancements to the G4. For example, it deepens the pipelines allowing for higher clock speeds, it adds extra AltiVec units to further increase AltiVec speed enhancements and adds an extra integer unit. The G4+ is supposed to be in test production right now, but there is no telling when it will actually be available. I think Motorola has turn to the G4+ in the hopes that it will save them from their follies with the G4. The original design had several flaws that have restricted the clock speed and even with all of Motorola's work to correct the problems, they are still having trouble.
Well, this is referring to the IBM G5 chip. IBM and Motorola actually differ on their processor numbers even though they use the same name. The G5 produced by IBM will actually be a variant based on the Power4 (IBM G4) architecture. Motorola's G5 will be a multi-core architecture based around the Motorola G4.
AltiVec is a technology developed by Motorola. It's primary usage is for accelerated processing of stream data. It performs the same operation over and over on a stream of data. The main purpose for Motorola's development of AltiVec was to be of use in the embedded market, which is their primary cash source. Since IBM focuses mostly on the high-end market such as servers, this wouldn't be as useful for them. The specialized acceleration provided by AltiVec wouldn't provide as much benefit as raw generic processing power would.
It's somewhat unlikely that Apple would move to the IBM G5 for anything other than a high-end server architecture. It might show up in several workstations, but they've invested too much in AltiVec to make that transition. It's a lot more likely that they will use Motorola's G5 chip, possibly getting IBM to manufacture them.
IBM has a lot more experience working with the copper wiring process as well as Silicon-on-insulator. They're able to produce significantly better yields than Motorola, which is the cause of this entire problem.
Most of the code morphing is handled in a software layer. To cut out the silicon overhead of such a device. Because of how the Crusoe's code-morphing is designed (with caching of translated commands) it isn't as slow as the usual software emulation. However, it would still be slower than hardware execution.
It would be possible to add new processor types and instructions, since, that doesn't require a change in the silicon, but a change in the code-morphing software. However, the more different kinds of instruction sets the code has to manage, the slower the system gets. If you only want to have one type of processor instruction set running at a time you experience only the emulation penalty to performance.
Of course, to run MacOS X it would require not only changes to the processor, but also some layer to address various differences in the hardware. Either that, or it would require adjustments made to the kernel and a recompile for that hardware. However, if Apple chose to support Crusoe that would not be a significant difficulty for them.
Each new platform would require changes made to the OS or some type of compatibility layer. While it is possible for individuals to accomplish tasks like that through open source, it would be considerably slower than if manufacturer's were to develop those options. However, in most case it's not worth it for them to put in the effort, seeing as they're not likely to make a significant enough profit right away.
In fact, one has to acknowledge that it may never be worth their while to do so. The Crusoe has yet to be real-world tested on a wide-scale, until then it's impossible to say whether or not it will succeed.
Even if it does turn out to be a significantly better processor than others, that doesn't mean it will be successful. Intel managed to keep AMD shut out on the low-end for a long time, even though the AMD chips were often better performing.