So, we can create a link that has a simple php script to have the user check a random domain through them. That way it isn't all coming from one IP Address... --
Wouldn't all the queries be coming from teh server that has teh PHP script?
So question: What injection were they using to gain access to the DB to query it in the first place?
That was my first question. Since it is a SQL injection, it is mostly platform independent, but for a mass hack there must be some common common webapp that they exploited. I mean, i know SQL injection is fairly trivial, but you still have to intelligently poke around a little bit to find exactly where and how to do it. If they DID managed to not only automate the SQL injection attacks on a massive scale but also automated the detection of vulnerable apps.. THAT would be pretty darn impressive. As well as a big wakeup call.
I, for one, am left feeling a little uneasy. While I know all the Ruby on Rails stuff I've written on our site is safe from SQL injection, we've also got a ton of crappy PHP code laying around that I didn't write. It is the kind of code that goes out of its way to be insecure. For example, many scripts just dump $_POST[] and $_GET[] to variables at the start of every sript. For all I know there are places where you could simply pass $admin = 1 in a GET request and have admin access. Ugh. I just don't have time to audit and fix all that crap.
I think a dynamic world coupled with a multi-user environment offers a lot of sandbox possibilities. Imagine GTA if you could be a cop, shooting down other dumbasses who were running over prostitutes? That'd be a hell of a game.
As long as it didn't simply turn into yet another team FPS. For example, the dumbasses would have to actually run over the prostitute. You can't just arrest/shoot any PC that isn't a cop. There has to be "stars" on them. There'd also need to be some incentive for a player to commit a crime. Otherwise you just have one group of players who are just goofing around in the sandbox and some cops waiting for them to commit a crime.
You assume that the fuel would be suitable for cars. But it is true, it would probably be burned some other way in place of either natural gas or petrolium... Still, my statement (that you left out of the quote) that you could just create electricity and reduce the need for coal and prevent that coal from being burned remains valid. Trying to make fuel for cars from the CO2 from coal is a very round about way of saving oil.
I guess it comes down to efficiency... Is the CR5 more efficient at creating hydrocarbons than solar cells (or other solar power) are at creating electricity? Besides, there are many other problems with coal power than just CO2. I think it is important try to get rid of coal power everywhere possible rather than add this "feel good" CO2 recycling system to it.
It enables people to not have to change everything overnight. We have a big investment in carbon based fuel processes, so having away to create hydrocarbons which we then burn, and create CO2, then use solar energy to repeat the process means that hydrocarbons are now just an intermediate step, and that we have a dynamic equilibrium, and can forgo the pain of trying to get rid of all our petrol engines and replace them with fuel cell engines. At least, this won't have to be done overnight, and we actually do stop the increase in greenhouse gases, because we recycle them.
Basically it allows us to feel warm and fuzzy about coal power without actually doing anything to reduce the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Imagine how coal friendly politicians will use this... they'll say "Look, we recycle CO2! Coal is Good again!" And few people will do the math and realize that recycling CO2 doesn't actually reduce the amount of CO2 released. It just delays it.
Bottom line is the we need to get rid of coal power. Using some "clever" scheme to make coal *seem* environmentally friendly is just wrong.
Correction: I messed up the calculation, the actual number is 240,000 units - but stil, a ridiculous quantity.
Not to mention that even if you did convert all the CO2 from the coal plants... you'd just be burning it again in cars (or something else). The entire process would not be carbon neutral. You're merely reusing the carbon once. In the end, you're releasing the exact same net amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Might as well just use the solar energy to create electricity directly and reduce the amount of coal burned in the first place. That would reduce the net amount of CO2 (from coal plants, anyway)... not just delay its release.
It would seem easier to pipe the CO2 into a greenhouse and grow some food.
Why even bother piping in CO2? I hear Monsanto has genetically engineered plants to pull CO2 RIGHT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. All hail Monsanto, Savior of Mankind and Protector of Intellectual Property (not necessarily in that order).:-P
Anyway, I think the nice thing about these CR5s is that they don't seem to require much external processing. Just put CO2 and Water in and get hydrocarbon fuels out. Not to mention O2. I'm sure the O2 these would produce would have some economic value. Using biomass for fuels, on the other hand, is rather involved, expensive process.
I use NeoOffice [neooffice.org], the Mac centric version of Open Office, and it's great.
I think he's just a little bitter than he had some trouble porting some particular open source tools that he uses. So he just decided to give up on OSS on OSX completely. Which is dumb, of course, but his choice.
If it weren't for open source software on OS X, I wouldn't be using it at all. It really is the best of both worlds, IMO.
I'm not calling Cocoa "commercial" (it's proprietary). I'm saying that if you're using OS X, don't bother with open source software for it, pay for the commercial apps.
Huh? It isn't an either/or thing. You can have open source Cocoa apps. I run several open source Cocoa applications.
I've never been much into cross-platform GUI programming
Neither have I, which is why I mostly use Linux: that's where the good open source software runs; open source sofware ported to OS X just isn't worth it.
That is nonsense. Just because you had some trouble porting some particular tools that you like to use doesn't mean ported applications aren't worth it. I run plenty of open source tools on my mac with no trouble whatsoever. Not only do I run them but I depend on them for my work.
There's nothing magical about LInux that makes open source applications better. It is just that a lot of hem start on Linux and so porting to other platforms isn't always straight forward. But it can be done and it is worth it. The applicaitons that tend to be difficult to port are GUI applications... and I never particdularly cared for GUI applications on Linux in the first place so I don't really consider that much of a loss.
Nice thing about developing for OS X is that it is free (well, you don't pay extra for it).
Only if you don't value your time: OS X programming is both harder than Linux programming and the skills you need to acquire are not useful for much else.
You need to be more specific. What do you mean by "OS X programming" and "Linux programming?" OS X uses gcc just like Linux. And commandline programs are nearly identical. The only thing that makes OS X (Cocoa) programming more challenging is that it uses Objective-C primarily. But what's another language to learn? I can usually get comfortable with a new language in a matter of weeks. From then on it is just a matter of having good API references and documentation available. I can always take away some general skills from it. For example, there's skill working effectively with others or designing good interfaces. These are things you learn no matter what platform you're eon. Software development is about much more than writing if statements and for loops.
Yeah, but even RoR is pretty self-contained and simple; it hardly uses any additional shared libraries, for example, and doesn't depend much on the OS.
I guess you've never tried installing rmagick or rmovie.;-)
Try getting something like wxRuby, wxPython, TkInter, or SciPy up and running on MacOS; it's a PITA no matter what you try, it never really quite works 100%, and the next Apple upgrade can break it all.
I've never been much into cross-platform GUI programming (aside from the web, of course). I'm of the opinion that a desktop app should take advantage of native frameworks and features as much as possible. I just cringe anytime I hear about someone developing a cross-platform desktop app... especially in Java. Yuck. Azureus, *shudder* I don't own a Mac so that I run the same ugly, homogenized applications as everyone else. I LIKE Cocoa. Use it!
OS X is usable for open source web frameworks, but for desktop apps, I find it better to either stick with the OS X specific commercial stuff or just use Linux.
Why call Cocoa "commercial?" That implies that you are paying for it like Qt or something. Nice thing about developing for OS X is that it is free (well, you don't pay extra for it). You get all Apple's Dev tools with your installation DVD. Not that I utilize it much, but it is nice to have if I want to tinker.
The rise in OS/X has nothing to do with OS/X or UNIX. OS/X is not much different from Windows any more unless you have already joined the Jobs cult.
Uh, what? Do you mean they aren't much different on some ideological level or something? Because I like to think I know a fair amount of about how OS's are designed and work, and I can say with certainty that Windows and OS X are quite a bit different on a technical level. As different as two modern OSes can be, anyway. I mean, they all do some basic things like virtual memory, preemptive multitasking, etc. From a user's perspective, they are also quite a bit different. OS X is all about simplified uncluttered interfaces... often leaving out features as a result. Using Windows, on the other hand, is like walking into a carnival. You've got a million programs all yelling out at you for attention. Each with a "settings" dialog with 2 dozen tabs, and 1,000 checkboxes. Seriously, just compare the Safari Preferences panel to the IE Internet Options. That says it all. I would go so far as to say that Linux is more like WIndows from a user's perspective than OS X is.
Sales of Apple computers are being driven by the iPod and other Apple gear, not the other way round.
At least for Linux users the attraction to OS is the combination of a polished UI and unix under the hood. Certainly having iTunes/iPod available is a bonus, but that could be gotten in Windows too.
The reasons I did not are 1) I use my right mouse button all the time and don't feel like switching
Of all teh stupid reasons... You know that the right mouse button works just fine in OS X, right? If you have one of the new Mighty Mice. You just have to turn it on in the preferences.
2) I write code and don't feel like learning an alternative to Visual Studio
This is a good reason. Xcode, Objective-C, and Cocoa are quite a bit different than anything you're used to in Visual Studio. Though you shouldn't be afaid to learn something new.
3) I don't see the superior style of the Apple gear justifies those costs
What costs? Last time I checked my MacBook Pro compared pretty well with a similar Dell on both price and features. How many PC laptops can you get with fast video, 802.11n, Firewire 800, DVI-out, and a solid aluminum case for under $2,000? 2nd and 3rd gen MBPs are easily worth the cost (first gen had problems). I wouldn't trade mine for 3 flimsy plastic Dell pieces of crap.
As far as I'm concern, on every computer, even a Mac, you have to fight when you want to do something unusual. The problem with Linux is that you also have to fight to do some of the usual things. But the good thing about that is when you want to do the unusual stuff, you probably already know how to fight.
And that is EXACTLY why we'll continue to see people moving from Linux to OS X. After 13 years of fighting Linux (actually, I had fun) I found OS X to be a nice relief. The fight wasn't always with Linux though. PC hardware, even with Windows installed, can be good for many a late night with computer components spread out over your desk, or worse, the floor. Sure, it is fun to tinker with that stuff... but eventually you want something that Just Works (and still has *nix under the hood). You still have to fight, like you say, to do something unusual, but the fight is optional and it doesn't make you want to scratch out your eyes like fighting Windows does.
I found a lot of seemingly trivial things to be absolutely tedious and borderline impossible on OSX. Something I could have just installed with cpan or apt-get on debian required that I install this lib. Then that lib. Then FINK. Then tweak a bunch of stuff. Then, finally, if I'd sacrificed enough chickens, I could install the actual think I had wanted to in the first place
Heh, i've found this to be true for many perl projects. Try to install amavisd and spamassassin on an older Linux distribution where the packages might not be up to date. Ugh!
I remember one time I unknowingly did a major version update of Perl from ports on a FreeBSD server running amavisd and spamassassin. Broke every single perl module installed because the perl update changed paths or something. I had to reinstall all 6.43*10^34 required perl modules/ports. At some point I got things so messed up I decided reinstall FreeBSD and just start from scratch. What a nightmare. Kind of like reading another person's perl code.
I'll stick with Ruby on my MacBook Pro, thanks.;-)
And $3,000 for a Mac? Man, I only paid $1,800 for my MBP. You know you can get the student discount even if you aren't a student? They don't seem to check.
Fink is a PITA: it's slow, many packages are missing, the dependencies aren't quite right, and the apps often don't work quite right in a Mac environment; I've given up on it on my Mac. Ditto for Darwin ports.
Macports works fine for me. Fink seemed like a cheap imitation of a proper Debian environment. As a long time Debian user I was disappointed. I agree, macports and fink are not to be relied on too heavily. But they work in a pinch when you just have to get something like mysqld or ImageMagick. I use macports to maintain a Ruby on Rails dev environment, personally. I'd hate to have to compile and maintain all that stuff manually.
Haha, that reminds me of this one Access database that I have to tinker with from time to time. It actually has column names such as "CURRENT MEMBER OF COMMUNIST PARTY (Y/N Y=Yes)"
This would be in the "PERSONAL INFORMATION TABLE" table.
Really horrible and unspeakable things happen when you give a "user friendly" database to your average office worker.
I want to add that since OS X is UNIX, all of the true tools that Linux and FreeBSD users are accustomed to run of a Mac.
..and then some. OS X actually has some decent commandline tools that you can't get elsewhere for doing things like manipulating disk images, streaming them over the network to clients, etc. I'm actually pleasantly surprised how well Apple has preserved the *nix spirit. When 10.0 first came out I thought for sure they would create some horrible abomination.
I know I could get the original binaries working just fine, using only packages from the original distribution by setting things like path variables. No compiling required. Yes, it's more difficult than click and run,
I'm sure *you* know how to do it, but most people don't and it isn't generally considered the "right" way of going about installing software on Linux. The standard way of installing Linux software is to either install it from teh distribution and be stuck with that version until you decide to upgrade your whole system all at once, or hope the someone has built a package for your particular distribution and version. Well, i guess there is that tiny fraction of software that has "universal" installers. But those is quite the exception.
but this exact issue exists with Windows software when you target a specific version of Windows too.
It is a darn good thing that very few vendors do it... or need to do it. Basically what you are saying is that Windows can theoretically be as difficult as Linux when it comes to transfering binaries between distributions, but in practice it generally isn't an issue. It is very much an issue on Linux.
LSB standard is RPM. Any distributions that follow LSB compatibility will support RPM. Before you say it, yes Debian/Ubuntu support RPM packages just fine, despite being Deb based. They offer to install it, then convert RPM packages on the fly with tools like 'alien' to a.deb package, and then install it (just from double clicking the RPM in the GUI).
Yes, thanks, I've installed RPMs on Debian before, an my experience was rather mixed. I pretty much determined (as have many others) that is something you generally want to avoid if at all possible. Though I can't say I've tried anything that is LSB compliant. In fact, I can't say I've even seen much LSB software. But then I haven't used Linux on the desktop for about 2 years. Maybe things have come a long, long way since then, but I doubt it.
My experience with Linux distributions (mainly Debian based) is that you are more or less stuck with whatever applications were available when the distribution was "frozen." Unless you are willing to compile stuff from source or get a backport of a package from the "unstable" release of the dist.
If you don't like it, use another distribution that focuses on having the latest "unstable" stuff. Different distributions have different rules and that is what the beauty of it is.
Its strength (beauty) is also its greatest weakness. Users shouldn't have to worry about whether or no they chose the correct distribution. Not everyone has time or the inclination to tinker with distributions like you or I do.
Now, trying to get Windows XP SP2 only optimized binaries working in Vista (Note: To my knowledge, very few of these binaries exist, but it is still a option when compiling)?
So you are comparing what COULD BE the general situation on WIndows with what IS the situation on Linux? What is even the point of making such a comparison?
I should note that Linux developers don't have the luxury of clicking a check box which determines what distribution to target.
My stance on this issue remains unchanged, running binaries compiled for a specific platform, distribution will cause issues, no matter which OS.
Uhmmm, Guess what? some people don't mind paying for automobiles, especially if they are good automobiles. The trouble, my friend, is that not everyone can afford a new high end Hummer, BMW, Lexus, or [your favorite expensive car here].
Maybe you never shopped for a Mac, but if you check out their store, they do offer reasonably priced systems. Not every Mac is a $4,500 Mac Pro.
There is a huge number of cheaper automobiles on the road for a reason. MOST people don't need Photoshop, they need a photo organizer and written instructions on how to connect their camera to the computer.
Indeed, and the iLife Suite easily fits that bill. And it comes free with new Macs. LInux has nothing that compares to iLife for home users. Seriously, OS X is pretty damn functional out out of the box. You don't really have to spend much money on auxiliary software.
I'll grant you that OS X or Windows can cost more, but not on the same scale as the difference between an economy car and luxury car. Seriously, what's an extra couple hundred dollars for some commercial software compared to an extra $20,000 for a Lexus? There's just no comparison.
In the LARGEST portion of home computer use requirements, the Mac does nothing better than a Linux system can, nor does a Windows system for that matter. When users can make an informed decision, Linux is the best option for a huge number of people.
Why? Because it is cheaper? Is that it? You're basing your computer recommendation for "the LARGEST portion of home computer use" on price? How.... uninsightful.
Don't tell me that Linux is difficult to use or learn. I know better than to fall for that stupid argument. There is a huge number of home computer users that don't know how to use Windows or OSX, so they will struggle along with whatever OS is on their computer despite your arguments.
See, that just it. Mac users generally don't spend much time struggling.
Gamers would love such a system because more resources are available for games
Seriously, what resources does the OS use when your running a fullscreen game? Maybe a little more RAM than is perhaps absolutely necessary? Is having, say, 256M more RAM available really going to make that much of a difference? What's that worth to the gamer? $15?
Multi-media users would love it for a similar reason
Why, exactly? What resources does "multi-media" really require that the OS is taking up unnecessarily? Again, it is more or less just RAM we're talking about. Even Windows is mostly idle when you're in an application. Now, it users didnt' need to run things like virus scanners and such... THAT might help the general user, but modern OS's are "bloated" for a reason... users and applications demands a lot from them.
Businesses would love it because it's easily configured to do what they need
If you remove features, isn't there less to configure and therefore less likely to fulfill the needs of business? Businesses (read: managers) don't really care how "easy" something is. They usually just want it done. And I doubt they're going to want to hear something like "Oh, we left that feature out because we wanted to save 256K of RAM."
Engineers/Scientist would love it for all the reasons mentioned above
Scientists are generally using specialized systems (Linux clusters, supercoomputers, etc) and not common desktop configurations so it doesn't really apply to them. Ease of use really isn't too much of a concern. Unless you think they care whether or not they have a few more megabytes of RAM and maybe a little more CPU power to run Microsoft Word to write their grant proposals...
Home users would accept it provided the documentation is easy to understand and it supports whatever they need it to support.
I'm sorry.. home users? Documentation? Read?
This isn't to say that WIndows couldn't be a lot less annoying. I'm just saying that, for better or worse, most of the bloat in OSes today is used.. by someone. Trying to please everyone is tough work and requires a LOT of code.
the only escape route is higher resolution which can't be served. Or distributed caching (managed bit torrrent), which beats the cable companies central caching.
Sure, but bit torrent has one huge drawback... it can't stream. That makes it pretty much unusable for ondemand movies. Not to mention that cable companies can and do throttle peer to peer sharing.
One thing the cable companies need to change is the pricing. For someone who watches a lot of movies, $4 per "rental" is pretty steep. Netflix easily beats cable ondemand movies in that regard. Plus I can make easy "backups" of DVDs from Netflix.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't all the queries be coming from teh server that has teh PHP script?
Yeah, but then you'd be arrested as a "terrorist."
-matthew
That was my first question. Since it is a SQL injection, it is mostly platform independent, but for a mass hack there must be some common common webapp that they exploited. I mean, i know SQL injection is fairly trivial, but you still have to intelligently poke around a little bit to find exactly where and how to do it. If they DID managed to not only automate the SQL injection attacks on a massive scale but also automated the detection of vulnerable apps.. THAT would be pretty darn impressive. As well as a big wakeup call.
I, for one, am left feeling a little uneasy. While I know all the Ruby on Rails stuff I've written on our site is safe from SQL injection, we've also got a ton of crappy PHP code laying around that I didn't write. It is the kind of code that goes out of its way to be insecure. For example, many scripts just dump $_POST[] and $_GET[] to variables at the start of every sript. For all I know there are places where you could simply pass $admin = 1 in a GET request and have admin access. Ugh. I just don't have time to audit and fix all that crap.
As long as it didn't simply turn into yet another team FPS. For example, the dumbasses would have to actually run over the prostitute. You can't just arrest/shoot any PC that isn't a cop. There has to be "stars" on them. There'd also need to be some incentive for a player to commit a crime. Otherwise you just have one group of players who are just goofing around in the sandbox and some cops waiting for them to commit a crime.
You assume that the fuel would be suitable for cars. But it is true, it would probably be burned some other way in place of either natural gas or petrolium... Still, my statement (that you left out of the quote) that you could just create electricity and reduce the need for coal and prevent that coal from being burned remains valid. Trying to make fuel for cars from the CO2 from coal is a very round about way of saving oil.
I guess it comes down to efficiency... Is the CR5 more efficient at creating hydrocarbons than solar cells (or other solar power) are at creating electricity? Besides, there are many other problems with coal power than just CO2. I think it is important try to get rid of coal power everywhere possible rather than add this "feel good" CO2 recycling system to it.
-matthew
Yeah, because everyone knows that it isn't possible to make a CO detector.
Basically it allows us to feel warm and fuzzy about coal power without actually doing anything to reduce the net amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Imagine how coal friendly politicians will use this... they'll say "Look, we recycle CO2! Coal is Good again!" And few people will do the math and realize that recycling CO2 doesn't actually reduce the amount of CO2 released. It just delays it.
Bottom line is the we need to get rid of coal power. Using some "clever" scheme to make coal *seem* environmentally friendly is just wrong.
-matthew
Not to mention that even if you did convert all the CO2 from the coal plants... you'd just be burning it again in cars (or something else). The entire process would not be carbon neutral. You're merely reusing the carbon once. In the end, you're releasing the exact same net amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Might as well just use the solar energy to create electricity directly and reduce the amount of coal burned in the first place. That would reduce the net amount of CO2 (from coal plants, anyway)... not just delay its release.
-matthew
Why even bother piping in CO2? I hear Monsanto has genetically engineered plants to pull CO2 RIGHT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. All hail Monsanto, Savior of Mankind and Protector of Intellectual Property (not necessarily in that order).
Anyway, I think the nice thing about these CR5s is that they don't seem to require much external processing. Just put CO2 and Water in and get hydrocarbon fuels out. Not to mention O2. I'm sure the O2 these would produce would have some economic value. Using biomass for fuels, on the other hand, is rather involved, expensive process.
-matthew
Please tell me you didn't actually try to run that command. Just some kind of pseudocode, perhaps?
I think he's just a little bitter than he had some trouble porting some particular open source tools that he uses. So he just decided to give up on OSS on OSX completely. Which is dumb, of course, but his choice.
If it weren't for open source software on OS X, I wouldn't be using it at all. It really is the best of both worlds, IMO.
Huh? It isn't an either/or thing. You can have open source Cocoa apps. I run several open source Cocoa applications.
That is nonsense. Just because you had some trouble porting some particular tools that you like to use doesn't mean ported applications aren't worth it. I run plenty of open source tools on my mac with no trouble whatsoever. Not only do I run them but I depend on them for my work.
There's nothing magical about LInux that makes open source applications better. It is just that a lot of hem start on Linux and so porting to other platforms isn't always straight forward. But it can be done and it is worth it. The applicaitons that tend to be difficult to port are GUI applications... and I never particdularly cared for GUI applications on Linux in the first place so I don't really consider that much of a loss.
You need to be more specific. What do you mean by "OS X programming" and "Linux programming?" OS X uses gcc just like Linux. And commandline programs are nearly identical. The only thing that makes OS X (Cocoa) programming more challenging is that it uses Objective-C primarily. But what's another language to learn? I can usually get comfortable with a new language in a matter of weeks. From then on it is just a matter of having good API references and documentation available. I can always take away some general skills from it. For example, there's skill working effectively with others or designing good interfaces. These are things you learn no matter what platform you're eon. Software development is about much more than writing if statements and for loops.
I guess you've never tried installing rmagick or rmovie.
I've never been much into cross-platform GUI programming (aside from the web, of course). I'm of the opinion that a desktop app should take advantage of native frameworks and features as much as possible. I just cringe anytime I hear about someone developing a cross-platform desktop app... especially in Java. Yuck. Azureus, *shudder* I don't own a Mac so that I run the same ugly, homogenized applications as everyone else. I LIKE Cocoa. Use it!
Why call Cocoa "commercial?" That implies that you are paying for it like Qt or something. Nice thing about developing for OS X is that it is free (well, you don't pay extra for it). You get all Apple's Dev tools with your installation DVD. Not that I utilize it much, but it is nice to have if I want to tinker.
Uh, what? Do you mean they aren't much different on some ideological level or something? Because I like to think I know a fair amount of about how OS's are designed and work, and I can say with certainty that Windows and OS X are quite a bit different on a technical level. As different as two modern OSes can be, anyway. I mean, they all do some basic things like virtual memory, preemptive multitasking, etc. From a user's perspective, they are also quite a bit different. OS X is all about simplified uncluttered interfaces... often leaving out features as a result. Using Windows, on the other hand, is like walking into a carnival. You've got a million programs all yelling out at you for attention. Each with a "settings" dialog with 2 dozen tabs, and 1,000 checkboxes. Seriously, just compare the Safari Preferences panel to the IE Internet Options. That says it all. I would go so far as to say that Linux is more like WIndows from a user's perspective than OS X is.
At least for Linux users the attraction to OS is the combination of a polished UI and unix under the hood. Certainly having iTunes/iPod available is a bonus, but that could be gotten in Windows too.
Of all teh stupid reasons... You know that the right mouse button works just fine in OS X, right? If you have one of the new Mighty Mice. You just have to turn it on in the preferences.
This is a good reason. Xcode, Objective-C, and Cocoa are quite a bit different than anything you're used to in Visual Studio. Though you shouldn't be afaid to learn something new.
What costs? Last time I checked my MacBook Pro compared pretty well with a similar Dell on both price and features. How many PC laptops can you get with fast video, 802.11n, Firewire 800, DVI-out, and a solid aluminum case for under $2,000? 2nd and 3rd gen MBPs are easily worth the cost (first gen had problems). I wouldn't trade mine for 3 flimsy plastic Dell pieces of crap.
And that is EXACTLY why we'll continue to see people moving from Linux to OS X. After 13 years of fighting Linux (actually, I had fun) I found OS X to be a nice relief. The fight wasn't always with Linux though. PC hardware, even with Windows installed, can be good for many a late night with computer components spread out over your desk, or worse, the floor. Sure, it is fun to tinker with that stuff... but eventually you want something that Just Works (and still has *nix under the hood). You still have to fight, like you say, to do something unusual, but the fight is optional and it doesn't make you want to scratch out your eyes like fighting Windows does.
Heh, i've found this to be true for many perl projects. Try to install amavisd and spamassassin on an older Linux distribution where the packages might not be up to date. Ugh!
I remember one time I unknowingly did a major version update of Perl from ports on a FreeBSD server running amavisd and spamassassin. Broke every single perl module installed because the perl update changed paths or something. I had to reinstall all 6.43*10^34 required perl modules/ports. At some point I got things so messed up I decided reinstall FreeBSD and just start from scratch. What a nightmare. Kind of like reading another person's perl code.
I'll stick with Ruby on my MacBook Pro, thanks.
And $3,000 for a Mac? Man, I only paid $1,800 for my MBP. You know you can get the student discount even if you aren't a student? They don't seem to check.
-matthew
Macports works fine for me. Fink seemed like a cheap imitation of a proper Debian environment. As a long time Debian user I was disappointed. I agree, macports and fink are not to be relied on too heavily. But they work in a pinch when you just have to get something like mysqld or ImageMagick. I use macports to maintain a Ruby on Rails dev environment, personally. I'd hate to have to compile and maintain all that stuff manually.
Haha, that reminds me of this one Access database that I have to tinker with from time to time. It actually has column names such as "CURRENT MEMBER OF COMMUNIST PARTY (Y/N Y=Yes)"
This would be in the "PERSONAL INFORMATION TABLE" table.
Really horrible and unspeakable things happen when you give a "user friendly" database to your average office worker.
-matthew
Bah, FTP is so passe' anyway. You should get mac-fuse mount via SCP.
-matthew
How is it a selling point that Linux doesn't fit your needs out of the box?
I'll tell you what, after 13 years of customizing Linux to fit my needs, OS X sure is a relief. Papa Jobs had good taste.
-matthew
I'm sure *you* know how to do it, but most people don't and it isn't generally considered the "right" way of going about installing software on Linux. The standard way of installing Linux software is to either install it from teh distribution and be stuck with that version until you decide to upgrade your whole system all at once, or hope the someone has built a package for your particular distribution and version. Well, i guess there is that tiny fraction of software that has "universal" installers. But those is quite the exception.
It is a darn good thing that very few vendors do it... or need to do it. Basically what you are saying is that Windows can theoretically be as difficult as Linux when it comes to transfering binaries between distributions, but in practice it generally isn't an issue. It is very much an issue on Linux.
Yes, thanks, I've installed RPMs on Debian before, an my experience was rather mixed. I pretty much determined (as have many others) that is something you generally want to avoid if at all possible. Though I can't say I've tried anything that is LSB compliant. In fact, I can't say I've even seen much LSB software. But then I haven't used Linux on the desktop for about 2 years. Maybe things have come a long, long way since then, but I doubt it.
Its strength (beauty) is also its greatest weakness. Users shouldn't have to worry about whether or no they chose the correct distribution. Not everyone has time or the inclination to tinker with distributions like you or I do.
So you are comparing what COULD BE the general situation on WIndows with what IS the situation on Linux? What is even the point of making such a comparison?
I should note that Linux developers don't have the luxury of clicking a check box which determines what distribution to target.
Your stance is moot. Not wrong, just moot.
Maybe you never shopped for a Mac, but if you check out their store, they do offer reasonably priced systems. Not every Mac is a $4,500 Mac Pro.
There is a huge number of cheaper automobiles on the road for a reason. MOST people don't need Photoshop, they need a photo organizer and written instructions on how to connect their camera to the computer.
Indeed, and the iLife Suite easily fits that bill. And it comes free with new Macs. LInux has nothing that compares to iLife for home users. Seriously, OS X is pretty damn functional out out of the box. You don't really have to spend much money on auxiliary software.
I'll grant you that OS X or Windows can cost more, but not on the same scale as the difference between an economy car and luxury car. Seriously, what's an extra couple hundred dollars for some commercial software compared to an extra $20,000 for a Lexus? There's just no comparison.
Why? Because it is cheaper? Is that it? You're basing your computer recommendation for "the LARGEST portion of home computer use" on price? How.... uninsightful.
See, that just it. Mac users generally don't spend much time struggling.
-matthew
Seriously, what resources does the OS use when your running a fullscreen game? Maybe a little more RAM than is perhaps absolutely necessary? Is having, say, 256M more RAM available really going to make that much of a difference? What's that worth to the gamer? $15?
Why, exactly? What resources does "multi-media" really require that the OS is taking up unnecessarily? Again, it is more or less just RAM we're talking about. Even Windows is mostly idle when you're in an application. Now, it users didnt' need to run things like virus scanners and such... THAT might help the general user, but modern OS's are "bloated" for a reason... users and applications demands a lot from them.
If you remove features, isn't there less to configure and therefore less likely to fulfill the needs of business? Businesses (read: managers) don't really care how "easy" something is. They usually just want it done. And I doubt they're going to want to hear something like "Oh, we left that feature out because we wanted to save 256K of RAM."
Scientists are generally using specialized systems (Linux clusters, supercoomputers, etc) and not common desktop configurations so it doesn't really apply to them. Ease of use really isn't too much of a concern. Unless you think they care whether or not they have a few more megabytes of RAM and maybe a little more CPU power to run Microsoft Word to write their grant proposals...
I'm sorry.. home users? Documentation? Read?
This isn't to say that WIndows couldn't be a lot less annoying. I'm just saying that, for better or worse, most of the bloat in OSes today is used.. by someone. Trying to please everyone is tough work and requires a LOT of code.
-matthew
Sure, but bit torrent has one huge drawback... it can't stream. That makes it pretty much unusable for ondemand movies. Not to mention that cable companies can and do throttle peer to peer sharing.
One thing the cable companies need to change is the pricing. For someone who watches a lot of movies, $4 per "rental" is pretty steep. Netflix easily beats cable ondemand movies in that regard. Plus I can make easy "backups" of DVDs from Netflix.