May be more difficult than that. You'd need to guarantee that the implementation of the protocol it talks to a host PC by is defect free. Which may be difficult to do.
It's probably easier and more provably secure to just "firewall" it in hardware.
Well... if you're going to remove a device specifically designed for device security because some unknown third party device/person tells you to - your security problems aren't of a technical nature. As they say, there's no technical fix for stupid. Not saying it won't happen, but there's not a lot a security accessory vendor can do to protect against that.
If you're new to unix, FreeBSD 10 alpha is definitely not what you want. By default, FreeBSD installs no GUI, and v10 is not production ready yet - it is a development snapshot. If you want something equivalent to Ubuntu, check out PC-BSD, which is the user-friendly desktop oriented variant of FreeBSD.
There's no single killer advantage, but the general trend i've seen with FreeBSD after having used it since 2001 (Linux since 1996) is that in general, whilst some things seem to take longer to be supported in FreeBSD, generally once implemented, the implementation is stable. As in, it isn't junked and replaced with something completely different 18 months later. Linux tends to be in much more of a state of flux - this can be good if you want to run the very latest, however if you want something a bit more battle tested, it is not.
FreeBSD has different trees which are "supported" for a much longer period of time than most Linux distributions. Due to the seperation of the base OS and ports, you can run a battle-tested, stable core OS and updated ports. This is a lot trickier to do and far less common in the Linux world.
In short: yes. The handbook is front and center on the main website menu under documentation. If someone is unable to find that even before they find the link to the ISO, there's no helping them.
Self-contained applications is a nice idea, but it makes sense primarily with non-free binary only applications which the user or the OS distribution can't build from source code
Uh... no. It makes sense for any OS if you want to get away from dependency hell.
I can take an OS X application and simply drag/drop to any other OS X install (so long as it is of a supported version of the OS). There is one dependency - the OS version.
I can also run apps from anywhere (hell, even the disk image I downloaded them from), no need to worry about where they are installed.
Apple is sandboxing applications because writing software that is secure is hard, whether it is open source or closed source. Sandboxing and least privilege access is a way of attempting to deal with this problem: simply attempting to write secure applications has been proven over the last 30 years or so to be a problem we're not going to solve any time soon. Containing the problem as best we can via sandboxing perhaps reduces the amount of code that is security critical (the sandbox enforcement).
... it's more to do with the fact that Windows XP extended support (for security updates) ends in April. Which is just over 6 months away.
Contrary to what some believe, the enterprise is not stupid. If XP performs the functions required (and for many, it does) and is supported for security fixes (it currently is) and there is no compelling financial reason to encourage migration to another platform, guess what? The platform stays.
Whilst I agree IOPs are what counts - storage is not free. I gather you are referring to cloud provided storage, which has its own non-$ cost associated with it.
Of course. Not disputing that. I am however disputing the article's premise that SSD is more reliable than hard drive storage. If you compare like for like in terms of the amount of data stored, SSD has a long way to go. If you compare like for like in terms of data stored plus cost, it's not even close. Of course performance is better. That is not in dispute.
As I said, for far less money you can get redundant storage in the multi terabyte range. My point is this: if i need to store x amount of data in a reliable way, the money i save vs. SSD on buying a spinning disk means I could buy several of them to mitigate the increased failure rate vs. SSD and far exceed the reliability of an SSD for the same money.
Not only that, if you add enough SSDs to store the same amount of bytes as a 4TB hard drive you either need to RAID them or you will have cumulative failure rate far higher than the HD failure rate, which you could mirror (or hell, RAID6 it) for way less money.
... if i need to store x TB of data, i can set up a RAID1 mirror and have fault tolerance for way less than the cost of SSD based storage to hold it in a non-fault tolerant manner.
Internet "experts" poo poo the announcement, because it doesn't cure cancer and settle mars. Claim apple is "done" and how you should sell. Device then goes on to break all previous sales records. The 5, 4s and from memory 3g-s launches were all met with "meh" as far as i can remember.
I predict that, yet again, the 5s/5c will break previous records. I've spent the last few days (going to keep it for a week) using a HTC one. Sure on paper its better than my 4s. In actual use, it's a pain in the arse - buggy and unpolished (yes i'm now running android 4.2.2 on it), this morning for example, the timer i set for 6 minutes reverted back to the previous timer setting of 1:30 and went off at 1:30. Yes, i verified thjat it was counting down from 6 minutes before i opened another app. Cant even get basic stuff right.
I've just decided I'm going to remove the license for the software I have on my machine because I don't like it. I'm sure Microsoft and Apple will be just fine with this, as the precedent has been set by somebody doing this with BSD code and replacing it with GPL.
for the sarcasm impaired: you can't REMOVE somebody's license simply because you don't like it.
I know a lot of the Linux zealots don't care to acknowledge it, but the reality is that the viral clauses are just a matter of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. There's a real incentive to contributing back patches in that it's expensive to maintain your own fork, just for a few patches.
Let alone going to the trouble of writing your own entire compiler framework...
Phoronix - adview trolling website for Linux/GNU fanboys to set up rigged benchmarks of Linux vs. X, to get users/developers/fans of X enraged and visiting the site.
The number of massively flawed benchmarks done by phoronix lead me to believe this is the only logical purpose of the site. One or two benchmark screw ups is one thing, but to consistently screw up benchmarks to make everybody else's software look bad via subtle omission ro selection of bad configuration is just trolling.
Benchmarks are nothing to do with it. CLANG is more modular, generates better compiler warnings, plays nicely with IDEs and works better with Objective-C, for a start.
Benchmark performance can be improved with time. CLANG was started mostly because the GCC maintainer(s) were not interested in improving the objective-c support.
Slashdot Mirror
That. Those who don't understand ZFS are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
Maybe another less invasive option.... a security ring/bracelet/wristwatch/etc.
If you don't have the jewellery in close proximity, the phone won't unlock. Chicks would love that.
May be more difficult than that. You'd need to guarantee that the implementation of the protocol it talks to a host PC by is defect free. Which may be difficult to do.
It's probably easier and more provably secure to just "firewall" it in hardware.
Well... if you're going to remove a device specifically designed for device security because some unknown third party device/person tells you to - your security problems aren't of a technical nature. As they say, there's no technical fix for stupid. Not saying it won't happen, but there's not a lot a security accessory vendor can do to protect against that.
If someone has physical access to your phone unsupervised, ALL BETS ARE OFF.
You could do that. I could also not buy your broken charger.
If you're new to unix, FreeBSD 10 alpha is definitely not what you want. By default, FreeBSD installs no GUI, and v10 is not production ready yet - it is a development snapshot. If you want something equivalent to Ubuntu, check out PC-BSD, which is the user-friendly desktop oriented variant of FreeBSD.
There's no single killer advantage, but the general trend i've seen with FreeBSD after having used it since 2001 (Linux since 1996) is that in general, whilst some things seem to take longer to be supported in FreeBSD, generally once implemented, the implementation is stable. As in, it isn't junked and replaced with something completely different 18 months later. Linux tends to be in much more of a state of flux - this can be good if you want to run the very latest, however if you want something a bit more battle tested, it is not.
FreeBSD has different trees which are "supported" for a much longer period of time than most Linux distributions. Due to the seperation of the base OS and ports, you can run a battle-tested, stable core OS and updated ports. This is a lot trickier to do and far less common in the Linux world.
In short: yes. The handbook is front and center on the main website menu under documentation. If someone is unable to find that even before they find the link to the ISO, there's no helping them.
I'm not quite sure how one can point out the exceedingly obvious documentation without sounding condescending?
Just because you are doing it wrong, it doesn't mean rm is poo. Try: "rm -Rf foo" instead.
Uh... iOS has supported ipv6 for some time now. I have native IPv6 at home and my iPhone/iPad pick up an ipv6 address and work dual-stack just fine?
Uh... no. It makes sense for any OS if you want to get away from dependency hell.
I can take an OS X application and simply drag/drop to any other OS X install (so long as it is of a supported version of the OS). There is one dependency - the OS version.
I can also run apps from anywhere (hell, even the disk image I downloaded them from), no need to worry about where they are installed.
Apple is sandboxing applications because writing software that is secure is hard, whether it is open source or closed source. Sandboxing and least privilege access is a way of attempting to deal with this problem: simply attempting to write secure applications has been proven over the last 30 years or so to be a problem we're not going to solve any time soon. Containing the problem as best we can via sandboxing perhaps reduces the amount of code that is security critical (the sandbox enforcement).
Contrary to what some believe, the enterprise is not stupid. If XP performs the functions required (and for many, it does) and is supported for security fixes (it currently is) and there is no compelling financial reason to encourage migration to another platform, guess what? The platform stays.
Whilst I agree IOPs are what counts - storage is not free. I gather you are referring to cloud provided storage, which has its own non-$ cost associated with it.
Of course. Not disputing that. I am however disputing the article's premise that SSD is more reliable than hard drive storage. If you compare like for like in terms of the amount of data stored, SSD has a long way to go. If you compare like for like in terms of data stored plus cost, it's not even close. Of course performance is better. That is not in dispute.
As I said, for far less money you can get redundant storage in the multi terabyte range. My point is this: if i need to store x amount of data in a reliable way, the money i save vs. SSD on buying a spinning disk means I could buy several of them to mitigate the increased failure rate vs. SSD and far exceed the reliability of an SSD for the same money.
Not only that, if you add enough SSDs to store the same amount of bytes as a 4TB hard drive you either need to RAID them or you will have cumulative failure rate far higher than the HD failure rate, which you could mirror (or hell, RAID6 it) for way less money.
... if i need to store x TB of data, i can set up a RAID1 mirror and have fault tolerance for way less than the cost of SSD based storage to hold it in a non-fault tolerant manner.
Internet "experts" poo poo the announcement, because it doesn't cure cancer and settle mars. Claim apple is "done" and how you should sell. Device then goes on to break all previous sales records. The 5, 4s and from memory 3g-s launches were all met with "meh" as far as i can remember.
I predict that, yet again, the 5s/5c will break previous records. I've spent the last few days (going to keep it for a week) using a HTC one. Sure on paper its better than my 4s. In actual use, it's a pain in the arse - buggy and unpolished (yes i'm now running android 4.2.2 on it), this morning for example, the timer i set for 6 minutes reverted back to the previous timer setting of 1:30 and went off at 1:30. Yes, i verified thjat it was counting down from 6 minutes before i opened another app. Cant even get basic stuff right.
I've just decided I'm going to remove the license for the software I have on my machine because I don't like it. I'm sure Microsoft and Apple will be just fine with this, as the precedent has been set by somebody doing this with BSD code and replacing it with GPL.
for the sarcasm impaired: you can't REMOVE somebody's license simply because you don't like it.
Let alone going to the trouble of writing your own entire compiler framework...
Phoronix - adview trolling website for Linux/GNU fanboys to set up rigged benchmarks of Linux vs. X, to get users/developers/fans of X enraged and visiting the site.
The number of massively flawed benchmarks done by phoronix lead me to believe this is the only logical purpose of the site. One or two benchmark screw ups is one thing, but to consistently screw up benchmarks to make everybody else's software look bad via subtle omission ro selection of bad configuration is just trolling.
Have you read the CLANG source to compare?
Benchmarks are nothing to do with it. CLANG is more modular, generates better compiler warnings, plays nicely with IDEs and works better with Objective-C, for a start.
Benchmark performance can be improved with time. CLANG was started mostly because the GCC maintainer(s) were not interested in improving the objective-c support.