I know there's a GPL issue with the Apple app store. I haven't heard about the other licenses but my gut tells me that the more permissive ones are probably okay.
Pretty much. App stores are effectively a repository, the difference is negligible for users. If you don't like the app store you're using, go and use a different one.
That's right. Just to clarify, even Honeycomb's code has been released at this point, although it's not "tagged" so it isn't as easy to get to. Google did this on purpose to encourage developers to build using the Ice Cream Sandwich code instead, which is probably better for everyone involved.
To me using a third party controller is asking for trouble. The feel is never right, and I worry about the analog components being poorly calibrated. The only good one I owned was the AsciiPad for SNES, but that was pure digital.
In my experience, if you tell them you make apps they'll glaze right over and start making assumptions about you. It rarely goes over very well, you can actually see the boredom grow in their face. If you're (un)lucky they'll ask you to fix their computer.
At this point in my life I would rather joke around and tell people some made up job, like that I'm a mattress quality control tester or that I carve names into gravestones. It makes for better conversation.
I don't know if you're kidding or what, but that's hardly a spoiler. I didn't even remember that part of the game until I read that post, so how significant could it really be?
iPhone users don't freak out because you like Android phones
Can you really stand by that generalization? You can find examples of both Android and iPhone users doing this all over the web. Sure, some people will be fine, but others will definitely act like assholes.
For this to work, the malicious code added to the repository would have to both accomplish an attack and somehow add the correct "fudge" characters to the data in order to produce a SHA1 hash ("checksum") that matches the target SHA1. This is called a "collision" and the probability of being able to do so is ridiculously small. The attacker would probably have to repeatedly brute-force the production of these "fudge" characters and recompute the SHA1, which is computationally very expensive by design.
Even if they accomplish this, the attacker would have to convince other git users to pull in their changes, and hope that nobody notices the oddball fudge characters floating around in the change set. So all in all I don't see it happening.
Why bother forking Chromium when they can just contribute back to the original project? There's usually no point to forking unless you have trouble getting the maintainer to merge in your changes.
Just as an FYI I don't think they used Clean Access Agent at Purchase. This particular beast was browser based, which Cisco Clean Access is not (as far as I'm aware). Also at the time that I visited there was also no one-hour grace period.
I didn't attend SUNY Purchase in NY, but when I visited a year or two ago I thought their network security was pretty heavy handed. I'm not sure if it's still like this today, but here is my experience.
Although the network was open and unencrypted, users were redirected to a splash page on their first web request. This splash page used a browser plugin or other fairly intrusive mechanism that searches your computer for the latest OS updates and a working copy of Anti Virus software. It only accepted a few approved AV vendors. If the definitions or OS are out of date, you can't connect to anything but your update site.
Even if you have a fully updated machine with all the required bells and whistles, it's still inconvenient because the splash page still had to scan your computer on every initial connection. So basically you're looking at a 1-3 minute delay between opening your laptop and actually doing anything on the net. The one-time setup took something like 1-2 hours.
Both Windows and Mac users were faced with the antivirus requirement and all the associated bloat. Oh, and if you run linux, you're just out of luck. No support or free pass for you, at all. (As a side note, the school newspaper ran an article about the virtues of Linux and open source just a few weeks before they installed this security system.)
I'm all for security but when you reach that level of inconvenience and exclusion, I start to question if it's actually worth it.
Although it's possible that Lockheed was the end target of the RSA crackers, it's also possible that the fruits of the RSA hack were simply sold to the people who then used it to do the Lockheed break in.
I don't think the guys who make custom ROMs are significant enough to really be of concern for Android's image, ill conceived as some of those ROMs may be. I think the bigger concern would be careless manufacturers selling bad devices to Joe User. Anyway the people who flash custom ROMs onto their devices generally know they might break some things.
That is not a sane default. Apple products are made to be useful to the inexperienced. Such users would typically not even consider configuring such things.
You're blaming a flaw in a particular application on the OS. If this was a problem with the OS, wouldn't all apps that use SQLite be exposing their data?
Java doesn't really need function pointers. You can just as easily create a class that implements some arbitrary interface that does what you're trying to do. Where you would normally pass a function pointer in another language, you would instead pass an instance of a class that implements your interface. When the code wants to call your function, it calls yourInstance.doSomething() instead of dereferencing a function pointer.
Anyway leaving function pointers out of Java was probably a deliberate design decision. Off the top of my head I don't know the exact reasoning for it.
Maybe, but they weren't the only ones who made that mistake. Countless COBOL programs and mainframe datasets made that "Optimization" before and after the PC came around.
Slashdot Mirror
I know there's a GPL issue with the Apple app store. I haven't heard about the other licenses but my gut tells me that the more permissive ones are probably okay.
Unhelpful comment, -1 Internets to you. You say he's wrong but don't go into why or how, then you go ad hominem.
Pretty much. App stores are effectively a repository, the difference is negligible for users. If you don't like the app store you're using, go and use a different one.
To the vast majority of people out there even Linux is a walled garden because they don't have a clue how to modify it
It's not about modifying the base system. Walled gardens are about centralized control of the software ecosystem.
That's right. Just to clarify, even Honeycomb's code has been released at this point, although it's not "tagged" so it isn't as easy to get to. Google did this on purpose to encourage developers to build using the Ice Cream Sandwich code instead, which is probably better for everyone involved.
To me using a third party controller is asking for trouble. The feel is never right, and I worry about the analog components being poorly calibrated. The only good one I owned was the AsciiPad for SNES, but that was pure digital.
That wouldn't be too far from the truth if I worked with genetic algorithms.
In my experience, if you tell them you make apps they'll glaze right over and start making assumptions about you. It rarely goes over very well, you can actually see the boredom grow in their face. If you're (un)lucky they'll ask you to fix their computer.
At this point in my life I would rather joke around and tell people some made up job, like that I'm a mattress quality control tester or that I carve names into gravestones. It makes for better conversation.
I don't know if you're kidding or what, but that's hardly a spoiler. I didn't even remember that part of the game until I read that post, so how significant could it really be?
You should write your congress critter about it.
Here is how they voted
iPhone users don't freak out because you like Android phones
Can you really stand by that generalization? You can find examples of both Android and iPhone users doing this all over the web. Sure, some people will be fine, but others will definitely act like assholes.
This command will clone the svn repository into a new git repository, preserving history.
Warning: It will take a few minutes. Also, if your slashdot preferences add "[googlecode.com]" to the url, remove it.
git svn clone -s http://moonblink.googlecode.com/svn/ moonblink-read-only
For this to work, the malicious code added to the repository would have to both accomplish an attack and somehow add the correct "fudge" characters to the data in order to produce a SHA1 hash ("checksum") that matches the target SHA1. This is called a "collision" and the probability of being able to do so is ridiculously small. The attacker would probably have to repeatedly brute-force the production of these "fudge" characters and recompute the SHA1, which is computationally very expensive by design.
Even if they accomplish this, the attacker would have to convince other git users to pull in their changes, and hope that nobody notices the oddball fudge characters floating around in the change set. So all in all I don't see it happening.
"Open Sores" does mean Open Source. It's a troll phrase, and not a very clever one either.
Why bother forking Chromium when they can just contribute back to the original project? There's usually no point to forking unless you have trouble getting the maintainer to merge in your changes.
Just as an FYI I don't think they used Clean Access Agent at Purchase. This particular beast was browser based, which Cisco Clean Access is not (as far as I'm aware). Also at the time that I visited there was also no one-hour grace period.
I didn't attend SUNY Purchase in NY, but when I visited a year or two ago I thought their network security was pretty heavy handed. I'm not sure if it's still like this today, but here is my experience.
Although the network was open and unencrypted, users were redirected to a splash page on their first web request. This splash page used a browser plugin or other fairly intrusive mechanism that searches your computer for the latest OS updates and a working copy of Anti Virus software. It only accepted a few approved AV vendors. If the definitions or OS are out of date, you can't connect to anything but your update site.
Even if you have a fully updated machine with all the required bells and whistles, it's still inconvenient because the splash page still had to scan your computer on every initial connection. So basically you're looking at a 1-3 minute delay between opening your laptop and actually doing anything on the net. The one-time setup took something like 1-2 hours.
Both Windows and Mac users were faced with the antivirus requirement and all the associated bloat. Oh, and if you run linux, you're just out of luck. No support or free pass for you, at all. (As a side note, the school newspaper ran an article about the virtues of Linux and open source just a few weeks before they installed this security system.)
I'm all for security but when you reach that level of inconvenience and exclusion, I start to question if it's actually worth it.
Although it's possible that Lockheed was the end target of the RSA crackers, it's also possible that the fruits of the RSA hack were simply sold to the people who then used it to do the Lockheed break in.
I don't think the guys who make custom ROMs are significant enough to really be of concern for Android's image, ill conceived as some of those ROMs may be. I think the bigger concern would be careless manufacturers selling bad devices to Joe User. Anyway the people who flash custom ROMs onto their devices generally know they might break some things.
That is not a sane default. Apple products are made to be useful to the inexperienced. Such users would typically not even consider configuring such things.
You're blaming a flaw in a particular application on the OS. If this was a problem with the OS, wouldn't all apps that use SQLite be exposing their data?
Java doesn't really need function pointers. You can just as easily create a class that implements some arbitrary interface that does what you're trying to do. Where you would normally pass a function pointer in another language, you would instead pass an instance of a class that implements your interface. When the code wants to call your function, it calls yourInstance.doSomething() instead of dereferencing a function pointer.
Anyway leaving function pointers out of Java was probably a deliberate design decision. Off the top of my head I don't know the exact reasoning for it.
From what I understand there's nothing to "compile" in ChromeOS in the traditional sense. The OS really only runs web apps and browser extensions.
Now the bloggers will have to fabricate stories about something else.
Maybe, but they weren't the only ones who made that mistake. Countless COBOL programs and mainframe datasets made that "Optimization" before and after the PC came around.