Which students? The stupid ones who shouldn't be in comp sci? Those kind don't actually enjoy coding, and are not the ones who work on GNU/Linux/BSD. The good comp sci students, however, produce good code because they enjoy coding. Remember who was a college student with Linux was first written?
The funny thing about students is that they think they're brilliant at coding but that's just the arrogance of youth. Even the ones who "enjoy coding" are medicore at best and can produce some of the most wretched code you've ever seen. It takes time and experience to become a guru. The versions of Linux that Linus wrote as a student were crappy. Even Linus admitted embarrassment at the poor code he wrote.
The fact is that the early versions of Linux weren't very good. Linux wasn't portable. Linux wasn't fast. Linux didn't even have networking or video support when I started using it. Linux was vaguely stable after a lot of effort had been poured into fixing all the bugs, but for a very long time the BSD community used to laugh at us for running something lamer than MINIX. Linux only became good after 100s of developers had joined the project. Linux had input from graybeards including people who had worked on commercial UNIX. Linus provided a catalyst, not the polished gemstone.
I think it's very important to keep things in perspective. Worshipping Linus as if somehow Linux sprang forth from his forehead in the form you see it today, and using Linus to excuse the mediocrity that is the common student, is not keeping things in perspective. Linus was a talented coder from day one but he wasn't an experienced coder until well after graduation.
And the majority of students don't have half the talent of Linus.
The hell you don't! Send them an RTF if the Word format doesn't work. If they can't deal with the RTF, send them text and be done with it.
RTF doesn't do anywhere near everything that these documents require. Neither does plain text. And how is a client going to react when they ask for Word and I send them RTF? I intend to keep my clients. I've no intention of treating them like shit, which is apparently how you would treat them.
Look, no wonder people get shitty with open-source advocates. I'm telling you that the customer wants Word, the Word export from OpenOffice doesn't work well, and you're giving me this useless advice that somehow manages to be condescending; as if I hadn't already considered and rejected RTF, you damn moron.
Only in your bizarro world where OS X is perfect and critics are always wrong.
I would certainly trust students, learning as they go to create trustworthy computing software, much more than Microsoft, whose only goal seems to be market domination, not any kind of user satisfaction or security!
I would trust a retarded chimpanzee with Alzheimer's more than I would trust Microsoft, but that's not exactly saying much. Setting yourself "Microsoft" as the golden standard is kind of pointless.
As for why I (*shudder*) at the thought that students are responsible for some of the code in BSD (and also Linux, I shudder at that too), I have seen the code that students write. I've seen this come out of a student's garbled mind (written in C)...
system("ping 127.0.0.1")
If you're defending that, you're not the sort of person whose opinion I value.
I use OpenOffice and I have yet to find a single Word document that it cant open and read.
Same here. I've never had any trouble opening Word documents. They open and render nearly perfectly; the only discernable differences are kerning and line wraps.
The problem is during export. The exported Word documents are basically unusable in Word. There are numerous problems with section numbering, fonts, styles, frame layouts, etc.
As for exports, I can save in PDF.
Unfortunately my clients can't modify PDF files. They require and demand Word documents. You don't argue with the person who pays the invoice; you give them Word documents.
Even where I do need to save as a Word document, I have yet to find an OpenOffice document that, when exported as a Word document, cant be opened, read and used properly by Word.
Well that's good for you. I've had nothing but grief and I run the most recent versions of OpenOffice that are available in Debian (currently 2.0.1). But hey, call me a liar why don't you.
You have just proven that your bias against intelligent design exists solely because of your hatred for Christians/Christianity.
You're a nutcase. Nowhere in that post did I say I hate Christians. Also the Intelligent Designers go to great pains to explain that ID has nothing to do with Christianity.
The fact remains that it is possible to be a genious and believe in God as Einstein demonstrated.
Oh, I get it, you're a troll. On the off chance that you're really just a nutcase, go back and read the bit where Einstein said he wasn't religious and didn't believe in the Christian God.
No, really, I'm being honest. If there's one application moreso than any other I want on Linux it's Microsoft Word. None of the word processors on Linux (free or pay-for) have decent enough import/export filters for me to collaborate on documents with Word victims. Unfortunately in my line of work that is a serious limitation and it's basically impossible for them to switch to OpenOffice. It's extra sad because OpenOffice Writer is just fine as a word processor.
"The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms."
Anytime someone claims that the only reason A is safer than B is that B is used more often, alarm bells should go off. It's never the only reason.
We went through the same thing with Linux vs. Windows, Firefox vs. IE, I've seen people make the claim about Opera vs. Firefox, it was said about Mac vs. Windows long before OSX, etc.
There's a difference. Firefox and Linux and Apache were fairly secure from the very start so as they increased in marketshare the viruses and attacks and exploits didn't increase significantly. However IE and Windows and IIS were fairly insecure from the very start but even so they weren't exploited very much until they had reached a fairly large marketshare. You were pretty safe surfing the web with IE3 and even to a lesser extent IE4 (at least initially) despite being insecure pieces of crud.
Now what I find most amusing about these "OS X is insecure" stories are the people with their heads in the sand saying "it's not true". They point to the lack of exploits and lack of viruses as proof but that's not proof that OS X doesn't have security holes, just that so far as we know they haven't been exploited yet. Take for example the dsidentity bug which IIRC was a setuid binary with this code...
if (strcmp(getenv("USER"), "root")) {/* do privileged stuff */ }
I kid you not. That's the quality of code in OS X. Now any seasoned security veteran at this point would be rolling around on the floor laughing. Apparently that's what the OS X developers did when they were informed of this bug. Because remember that OS X is not a brand-new rewritten-from-the-ground-up OS; it has an extremely long history dating back to the 80s. It began as AT&T UNIX, warped into BSD by students (*shudder*), was partially rewritten to avoid AT&T lawsuits, was further mangled by NeXt!1!1one!, then got a code infusion from FreeBSD, and has been further hacked by Apple since it's "birth" in 2000. There's code in there that is possibly older than you are. I was at a security conference recently where one of the presenters ran through a dozen bone-headed security mistakes in Tiger including kernel overflows of all things. The entire audience was laughing themselves silly.
Now don't get me wrong. OS X is still significantly better than Windows. They've done a lot of very sensible things such as not running with admin privileges, decent (not perfect) permissions, services disabled by default, built-in personal firewall, etc. Those are all good. But it's not enough. How the hell did getenv("USER") slip into a setuid binary? Why is there a kernel overflow; can't Apple afford one copy of Rational? Where is the virus scanner; even if all it looks for are UNIX-common attacks like the known Apache and Samba exploits. You guys are too complacent. OS X is not all that secure; impoverished marketshare and the subsequent lack of attention from criminals is hiding this truth from you.
So given that OS X is insecure and does have exploitable code it's only the fact that nobody has seriously attacked it yet that gives it this aura of impenetrability. I fully agree with the statement made by the security professional in the article. If OS X was better written then I would disagree with the security professional's opinion but my own experience and knowledge says that he is right and you are wrong.
A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous and some will snub you.
A discussion of how many times you've been to the toilet and the large bowel obstruction that you're trying to work through will have the same effect. There are some things that are personal and it's not anti-religious crusaders that make discussions of your Sunday School exploits so uncomfortable.
Also most people find discussions of co-workers kids to be mind-numbing, no matter what the background.
As has been said over and over and over again by quite a few people on/. in the many ID debates: Maintaining a belief is not incompatible with being well educated, logical and analytical.
Quoth Albert Einstein (again): "God does not play dice".
Every fucking time there's a discussion about religion, somebody trots out the "God does not play dice" quote...
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I don't mind if you want to argue that religious conviction has no clear connection with intelligence or lack thereof, but leave Einstein and his quote about gambling gods out of it. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God.
Plus, most of this 80% have increased their stress level unbelievably by destroying the greatest feature of email - the ability to get back to it when it doesn't disrupt things, unlike, say, phone calls.
Good point. Another mistake is that the blackberry tries to turn email - a system designed for best-effort delivery with potentially hours before the mail reaches the recipient - into an instant messaging service. People have become too comfortable with fast email delivery, which was never a guarantee for email, so when mail doesn't arrive within 5 seconds of being sent they ring the helpdesk and complaining. The blackberry compounds the problem by suggesting that email is instantaneous like a mobile phone.
For example, here in the US, in ANY court case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In many europeon countries, this varies with the type of court case. Libel cases, for instance, have the burden of proof placed on the defendent in Brittan.
"We are appalled that revered conventions are being blatantly flouted such as the dictum that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that everyone is entitled to legal defence of his choice and that habeas corpus obtains. I support your efforts to ensure justice is done for your loved ones and that they will be given access to the families. God bless you." -- The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu -- http://www.guantanamohrc.org/
The US spin machine even has a nifty term for what they're doing: Internment Without Trial. Wtf? They just slapped a happy-happy name on "guilty until proven innocent" and you guys bought it. Loyal sheep are already parroting the US government's implication that innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to certain people.
The hand-wringing about innocent until proven guilty is all very well but the assumption must inevitably be applied a little differently to someone accused making off with a bun out of a bakers, than people held captive in the act of fighting against our forces and our allies. Given the circumstances in which they were taken captive, I am personally far more concerned about the threat to our security these people represent, than the conduct of those that detained them.
Kelly Tait, Edinburgh -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4204997.s tm
Ok, admittedly she's British. Do you think most Americans would say any different? What worries me most is that it seems US citizens are less informed of what goes on in Guantanamo than people from the UK and Europe and Australia. Aren't you frightened by that?
As I said, remove the beam from thine own eye. You guys are acting pretty scary these days and it's even scarier when you don't realise it. The fact that I'm already receiving negative moderation for even daring to say that the US is less than perfect should be all the evidence you need that something is very wrong in the US right now.
The problem I have with the state of WLAN is that there are so many competing projects. It's a real minefield for the noob who just wants their card to work.
The majority of cards are now softmac rather than fullmac, so you need an 802.11 stack in addition to the chipset specific driver. Rather than have one stack we seem to have a half dozen: the sipsolutions stack, the dscape stack, the madwifi stack, etc. All of them have bugs and all of them are configured slightly differently.
Features like WPA require an interface between wpa_supplicant and the driver, and once again there are a half dozen variants. There's the wext interface, the ng interface, the madwifi interface, the dscape interface, etc. The ng deserves special mention because you can't even use iwconfig to set some parameters, it's that different.
Most cards have a binary firmware that needs to be uploaded once after every cold boot and getting those firmwares is itself an exercise in complexity. There are a half dozen tools to extract firmwares, copyright prevents the firwmares from being included with the Linux drivers, etc.
On top of all this, every distro has their own way of configuring the special options required for wifi. None of the distros seem to support WPA in their GUI configurators, so you need to drop to the command line to configure WPA supplicant, and then you find the distros all do it differently. The NetworkManager utility which promises to make this all easy doesn't even support WPA (though it will Real Soon Now).
The state of WLAN on Linux probably won't improve until all the drivers support WEXT, there's a standardised "fwcutter" like tool that knows how to extract every firmware for every supported wifi card, there's decent WPA support in at least one distro, and there's a single goddamn softmac stack.
I hated having to browse through the sectional sites to find all the stories. This works much better and with formatting disabled it simply looks like the frontpage has more stories.
Quit. Seriously. The answer is to quit. A bad boss makes for a horrible working environment. Horrible working environments are detrimental to your health. Your working environment will affect your mental health and that's not somethin you can leave at the office when you go home at not. Your home and love life will suffer just as much as your health. Take it from me; I've been there.
Just last week I was diagnosed with two partially-healed ulcers.
Stress does not cause ulcers. That's one of those persistent medical myths. Ulcers are caused by gut bacteria and it's typically poor diet that causes them to flare.
Steve Jobs said that he was talking about the processors being faster...and he specifically said not everything is going to be faster like the hard drives and memory etc etc. Just the processors which is why he showed the SPECmarks or whatever this phantom benchmark that, to my knowledge, isn't a free download from anywhere. Or was I the only one that heard him prefacing the results?
Oh well, let the Mac bashing continue, blood is in the water.
Take that G4 off your shoulder.
If any other CEO from any other company had made such an outlandish claim then they'd have been torn to shreds before the benchmarks from third party independents like Ars Technica. It's wishful thinking that the Core Duo could have been such an ace in the hole; Intel can't pull a miracle like that out of their butt because the G4 didn't suck that much. So when Jobs claimed in big bold neon lights "FOUR TIMES FASTER" and then in the fine print mumbled "only within my reality distortion field" that was pure deceit. It doesn't matter how strongly you try to post-event justify his loudly spoken lies by pointing to the hastenly spoken fine print.
This isn't Mac bashing. This is the same contempt we'd hold for any CEO that made such a hoopla out of nothing. I wish you fanboys would stop having one rule for Steve and another rule for all the rest. All the CEOs are lying scumbags and the rest of us don't need fanboys on blogs telling everybody how this particular CEO is a pure white angel.
He was threatened with expulsion and soon thereafter left "totally voluntarily". You connect the dots; he was told to leave voluntarily and save himself the embarrassment. That's the standard way for an administration to expel a troublesome student without creating paperwork.
Is the submitter on crack? Beagle is equally or perhaps more integrated than Spotlight.
To launch the Beagle search UI is a single keypress: F12. On Spotlight it's a double keystroke: command spacebar. Advantage: Beagle.
Both Beagle and Spotlight have a single icon in the main panel that you can click for a search UI or to set preferences. Advantage: equal
Both Beagle and Spotlight have a single search field that you can type into, hit enter, and see the results in the main window. Advantage: equal.
Clicking on a search result in either Beagle or Spotlight will launch the appropriate application for that document. Advantage: equal.
Beagle has helpers for mail, web pages, text documents, spreadsheets, image files, audio files, instant messaging, etc. Spotlight does not have the same breadth of helpers. Advantage: Beagle.
Beagle is integrated with inotify which means it is aware of file changes as soon as they occur. The very latest versions of OS X can do the same thing for Spotlight. Advantage: equal.
Beagle metadata is stored in the ext3 filesystem, associated with the file, so when you move the file the metadata moves with it. Beagle also provides a legacy database for filesystems that don't support file metadata. OS X does not provide a legacy database so you can't store metadata for files on filesystems such as found on removable drives. Advantage: Beagle.
Neither Beagle nor Spotlight are integrated with any applications other than the Finder or the Finder equivalent. Some OS X applications give the illusion that they have Spotlight functionality by using the same magnifying glass icon. In fact, they are using a separate metadata database and their own search routines. Advantage: equal.
Beagle looks ugly and Spotlight looks ugly. However Spotlight is the least ugly of the two though it fails a number of human interface design rules. Advantage: you decide.
Spotlight has been rammed down everybody's throat when it's blindingly obvious that it was rushed for Tiger. Beagle is still an optional feature on most distros. Advantage: you decide.
Or am i missing something and are OpenVZ and Xen very different products? (doesn't sound like it)
Yes, they are very different things. OpenVZ is more like BSD Jails or Solaris Zones (aka Solaris Containers). Xen is more like mainframe virtualization and very roughly like VMware (though not as useful).
OpenVZ is probably faster because kernel resources are shared. Xen permits different kernels or even different operating systems to run at the same time. OpenVZ will scale to a larger number of simultaneous instances. Xen is more robust because a kernel crash in one instance won't affect another instance. OpenVZ is simpler. Xen is more flexible.
If you read some of the histories of early Microsoft (or bios of Gates) I think you would be suprised. Bill dropped out of college because he was more interested in tinkering with early computers and writing software for them than getting his degree.
He was expelled from college because he stole computer time to develop the BASIC software that launched Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing about students is that they think they're brilliant at coding but that's just the arrogance of youth. Even the ones who "enjoy coding" are medicore at best and can produce some of the most wretched code you've ever seen. It takes time and experience to become a guru. The versions of Linux that Linus wrote as a student were crappy. Even Linus admitted embarrassment at the poor code he wrote.
The fact is that the early versions of Linux weren't very good. Linux wasn't portable. Linux wasn't fast. Linux didn't even have networking or video support when I started using it. Linux was vaguely stable after a lot of effort had been poured into fixing all the bugs, but for a very long time the BSD community used to laugh at us for running something lamer than MINIX. Linux only became good after 100s of developers had joined the project. Linux had input from graybeards including people who had worked on commercial UNIX. Linus provided a catalyst, not the polished gemstone.
I think it's very important to keep things in perspective. Worshipping Linus as if somehow Linux sprang forth from his forehead in the form you see it today, and using Linus to excuse the mediocrity that is the common student, is not keeping things in perspective. Linus was a talented coder from day one but he wasn't an experienced coder until well after graduation.
And the majority of students don't have half the talent of Linus.
God with a capital G in the United States means the Christian God. You're a nitwit to think otherwise.
He said he didn't, you keep saying he did, I think you're a nutcase. *plonk*
RTF doesn't do anywhere near everything that these documents require. Neither does plain text. And how is a client going to react when they ask for Word and I send them RTF? I intend to keep my clients. I've no intention of treating them like shit, which is apparently how you would treat them.
Look, no wonder people get shitty with open-source advocates. I'm telling you that the customer wants Word, the Word export from OpenOffice doesn't work well, and you're giving me this useless advice that somehow manages to be condescending; as if I hadn't already considered and rejected RTF, you damn moron.
Only in your bizarro world where OS X is perfect and critics are always wrong.
I would trust a retarded chimpanzee with Alzheimer's more than I would trust Microsoft, but that's not exactly saying much. Setting yourself "Microsoft" as the golden standard is kind of pointless.
As for why I (*shudder*) at the thought that students are responsible for some of the code in BSD (and also Linux, I shudder at that too), I have seen the code that students write. I've seen this come out of a student's garbled mind (written in C)...
If you're defending that, you're not the sort of person whose opinion I value.
Same here. I've never had any trouble opening Word documents. They open and render nearly perfectly; the only discernable differences are kerning and line wraps.
The problem is during export. The exported Word documents are basically unusable in Word. There are numerous problems with section numbering, fonts, styles, frame layouts, etc.
Unfortunately my clients can't modify PDF files. They require and demand Word documents. You don't argue with the person who pays the invoice; you give them Word documents.
Well that's good for you. I've had nothing but grief and I run the most recent versions of OpenOffice that are available in Debian (currently 2.0.1). But hey, call me a liar why don't you.
You're a nutcase. Nowhere in that post did I say I hate Christians. Also the Intelligent Designers go to great pains to explain that ID has nothing to do with Christianity.
Oh, I get it, you're a troll. On the off chance that you're really just a nutcase, go back and read the bit where Einstein said he wasn't religious and didn't believe in the Christian God.
Microsoft Word.
No, really, I'm being honest. If there's one application moreso than any other I want on Linux it's Microsoft Word. None of the word processors on Linux (free or pay-for) have decent enough import/export filters for me to collaborate on documents with Word victims. Unfortunately in my line of work that is a serious limitation and it's basically impossible for them to switch to OpenOffice. It's extra sad because OpenOffice Writer is just fine as a word processor.
I wouldn't mind MYOB either.
There's a difference. Firefox and Linux and Apache were fairly secure from the very start so as they increased in marketshare the viruses and attacks and exploits didn't increase significantly. However IE and Windows and IIS were fairly insecure from the very start but even so they weren't exploited very much until they had reached a fairly large marketshare. You were pretty safe surfing the web with IE3 and even to a lesser extent IE4 (at least initially) despite being insecure pieces of crud.
Now what I find most amusing about these "OS X is insecure" stories are the people with their heads in the sand saying "it's not true". They point to the lack of exploits and lack of viruses as proof but that's not proof that OS X doesn't have security holes, just that so far as we know they haven't been exploited yet. Take for example the dsidentity bug which IIRC was a setuid binary with this code...
I kid you not. That's the quality of code in OS X. Now any seasoned security veteran at this point would be rolling around on the floor laughing. Apparently that's what the OS X developers did when they were informed of this bug. Because remember that OS X is not a brand-new rewritten-from-the-ground-up OS; it has an extremely long history dating back to the 80s. It began as AT&T UNIX, warped into BSD by students (*shudder*), was partially rewritten to avoid AT&T lawsuits, was further mangled by NeXt!1!1one!, then got a code infusion from FreeBSD, and has been further hacked by Apple since it's "birth" in 2000. There's code in there that is possibly older than you are. I was at a security conference recently where one of the presenters ran through a dozen bone-headed security mistakes in Tiger including kernel overflows of all things. The entire audience was laughing themselves silly.
Now don't get me wrong. OS X is still significantly better than Windows. They've done a lot of very sensible things such as not running with admin privileges, decent (not perfect) permissions, services disabled by default, built-in personal firewall, etc. Those are all good. But it's not enough. How the hell did getenv("USER") slip into a setuid binary? Why is there a kernel overflow; can't Apple afford one copy of Rational? Where is the virus scanner; even if all it looks for are UNIX-common attacks like the known Apache and Samba exploits. You guys are too complacent. OS X is not all that secure; impoverished marketshare and the subsequent lack of attention from criminals is hiding this truth from you.
So given that OS X is insecure and does have exploitable code it's only the fact that nobody has seriously attacked it yet that gives it this aura of impenetrability. I fully agree with the statement made by the security professional in the article. If OS X was better written then I would disagree with the security professional's opinion but my own experience and knowledge says that he is right and you are wrong.
Also most people find discussions of co-workers kids to be mind-numbing, no matter what the background.
Every fucking time there's a discussion about religion, somebody trots out the "God does not play dice" quote...
I don't mind if you want to argue that religious conviction has no clear connection with intelligence or lack thereof, but leave Einstein and his quote about gambling gods out of it. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God.
Good point. Another mistake is that the blackberry tries to turn email - a system designed for best-effort delivery with potentially hours before the mail reaches the recipient - into an instant messaging service. People have become too comfortable with fast email delivery, which was never a guarantee for email, so when mail doesn't arrive within 5 seconds of being sent they ring the helpdesk and complaining. The blackberry compounds the problem by suggesting that email is instantaneous like a mobile phone.
Or possibly even Scottish...
You keep telling yourself that. Here's what Reverend Desmond Tutu had to say:
The US spin machine even has a nifty term for what they're doing: Internment Without Trial. Wtf? They just slapped a happy-happy name on "guilty until proven innocent" and you guys bought it. Loyal sheep are already parroting the US government's implication that innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to certain people.
Ok, admittedly she's British. Do you think most Americans would say any different? What worries me most is that it seems US citizens are less informed of what goes on in Guantanamo than people from the UK and Europe and Australia. Aren't you frightened by that?
As I said, remove the beam from thine own eye. You guys are acting pretty scary these days and it's even scarier when you don't realise it. The fact that I'm already receiving negative moderation for even daring to say that the US is less than perfect should be all the evidence you need that something is very wrong in the US right now.
Very, very, very wrong.
Giggle. Right on, brother. We only approve of America's oppressive style of government!
Take the beam out of your eye. Nationalism is for chumps.
The problem I have with the state of WLAN is that there are so many competing projects. It's a real minefield for the noob who just wants their card to work.
The majority of cards are now softmac rather than fullmac, so you need an 802.11 stack in addition to the chipset specific driver. Rather than have one stack we seem to have a half dozen: the sipsolutions stack, the dscape stack, the madwifi stack, etc. All of them have bugs and all of them are configured slightly differently.
Features like WPA require an interface between wpa_supplicant and the driver, and once again there are a half dozen variants. There's the wext interface, the ng interface, the madwifi interface, the dscape interface, etc. The ng deserves special mention because you can't even use iwconfig to set some parameters, it's that different.
Most cards have a binary firmware that needs to be uploaded once after every cold boot and getting those firmwares is itself an exercise in complexity. There are a half dozen tools to extract firmwares, copyright prevents the firwmares from being included with the Linux drivers, etc.
On top of all this, every distro has their own way of configuring the special options required for wifi. None of the distros seem to support WPA in their GUI configurators, so you need to drop to the command line to configure WPA supplicant, and then you find the distros all do it differently. The NetworkManager utility which promises to make this all easy doesn't even support WPA (though it will Real Soon Now).
The state of WLAN on Linux probably won't improve until all the drivers support WEXT, there's a standardised "fwcutter" like tool that knows how to extract every firmware for every supported wifi card, there's decent WPA support in at least one distro, and there's a single goddamn softmac stack.
Two thumbs up, CmdrTaco.
Stress does not cause ulcers. That's one of those persistent medical myths. Ulcers are caused by gut bacteria and it's typically poor diet that causes them to flare.
And you thought it was a joke... receiving spam is now the Microsoft definition of being spam-free!
What do you mean "potentially"?
That's rediculous! What a bunch of loosers.
Take that G4 off your shoulder.
If any other CEO from any other company had made such an outlandish claim then they'd have been torn to shreds before the benchmarks from third party independents like Ars Technica. It's wishful thinking that the Core Duo could have been such an ace in the hole; Intel can't pull a miracle like that out of their butt because the G4 didn't suck that much. So when Jobs claimed in big bold neon lights "FOUR TIMES FASTER" and then in the fine print mumbled "only within my reality distortion field" that was pure deceit. It doesn't matter how strongly you try to post-event justify his loudly spoken lies by pointing to the hastenly spoken fine print.
This isn't Mac bashing. This is the same contempt we'd hold for any CEO that made such a hoopla out of nothing. I wish you fanboys would stop having one rule for Steve and another rule for all the rest. All the CEOs are lying scumbags and the rest of us don't need fanboys on blogs telling everybody how this particular CEO is a pure white angel.
He was threatened with expulsion and soon thereafter left "totally voluntarily". You connect the dots; he was told to leave voluntarily and save himself the embarrassment. That's the standard way for an administration to expel a troublesome student without creating paperwork.
Is the submitter on crack? Beagle is equally or perhaps more integrated than Spotlight.
To launch the Beagle search UI is a single keypress: F12. On Spotlight it's a double keystroke: command spacebar. Advantage: Beagle.
Both Beagle and Spotlight have a single icon in the main panel that you can click for a search UI or to set preferences. Advantage: equal
Both Beagle and Spotlight have a single search field that you can type into, hit enter, and see the results in the main window. Advantage: equal.
Clicking on a search result in either Beagle or Spotlight will launch the appropriate application for that document. Advantage: equal.
Beagle has helpers for mail, web pages, text documents, spreadsheets, image files, audio files, instant messaging, etc. Spotlight does not have the same breadth of helpers. Advantage: Beagle.
Beagle is integrated with inotify which means it is aware of file changes as soon as they occur. The very latest versions of OS X can do the same thing for Spotlight. Advantage: equal.
Beagle metadata is stored in the ext3 filesystem, associated with the file, so when you move the file the metadata moves with it. Beagle also provides a legacy database for filesystems that don't support file metadata. OS X does not provide a legacy database so you can't store metadata for files on filesystems such as found on removable drives. Advantage: Beagle.
Neither Beagle nor Spotlight are integrated with any applications other than the Finder or the Finder equivalent. Some OS X applications give the illusion that they have Spotlight functionality by using the same magnifying glass icon. In fact, they are using a separate metadata database and their own search routines. Advantage: equal.
Beagle looks ugly and Spotlight looks ugly. However Spotlight is the least ugly of the two though it fails a number of human interface design rules. Advantage: you decide.
Spotlight has been rammed down everybody's throat when it's blindingly obvious that it was rushed for Tiger. Beagle is still an optional feature on most distros. Advantage: you decide.
Yes, they are very different things. OpenVZ is more like BSD Jails or Solaris Zones (aka Solaris Containers). Xen is more like mainframe virtualization and very roughly like VMware (though not as useful).
OpenVZ is probably faster because kernel resources are shared. Xen permits different kernels or even different operating systems to run at the same time. OpenVZ will scale to a larger number of simultaneous instances. Xen is more robust because a kernel crash in one instance won't affect another instance. OpenVZ is simpler. Xen is more flexible.
He was expelled from college because he stole computer time to develop the BASIC software that launched Microsoft.