No, it's not useless without the Apple GUI etc. You can perfectly run XFree86 on Darwin and use it like any other BSD variant that way, although the hardware support on the 80x86 front is rather limited. You can also run most "awesome linux software" on it (through a simple recompile or by getting binary packages from fink).
Because in the past, anyone who wanted to work on Darwin had to supply his patches to Apple, the ISC (Internet Software Consortium) and Apple together founded OpenDarwin.org to improve the way Darwin can develop as a stand-alone OS. The reason is that it's now a lot easier to get commit access. Apple engineers still work together with the general public to guide the project and interesting patches will be merged in Apple's Darwin distribution as well (and yes, reversely, Apple's changes are also merged in the OpenDarwin tree).
Have a look at Apple's XServe pages. The basic functionality is indeed quite similar to that of other Unix servers (which is exactly the point that the author of the article was trying to make, I think). The extra's are very nice remote management and diagnostic utilities, ease of maintenance (just slide it out of its cover) and some Mac-specific things like allowing other Macs to netboot from it.
Mac OS X had some bugs? No kidding. I'll tell you a secret, but make sure you don't tell it to anyone else: Mac OS X 10.2 will also have bugs! And 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 and whatever comes next also!! That's the case with every OS or application you'll ever buy. And it's not like the bugs in OS X were that numerous and intrusive they made the OS unusable (at least not for most people). If they were for you, then why on earth did you use it? Because Jobs said it was time to switch?
The main reason they still included Mac OS 9 was simply that a lot of people buying macs also had a Mac in the past and those people want to be able to still run older programs, which haven't (yet) been ported to Mac OS X, on their new computer. Backward compatibility, you know.
Finally, yes, the current/previous versions of Mac OS X are/were quite a bit slower than Mac OS 9 (although not in all regards, e.g. disk performance is already a lot better than in 9; it's mainly the GUI responsiveness imho), but otoh Mac OS X keeps getting faster and faster (and I hope 10.2 will solve this, for me, final issue). I for one am glad they first worked on stability and only then on optimizations. The way they're doing it now, you can really use the computer under OS X (I've barely booted in Mac OS 9 anymore since even Mac OS X Public Beta); if they'd done it the other way round, you'd be bitching even more I think.
In this case, it indeed doesn't matter what you think about these people's choices, just like it doesn't matter what you think about people switching tv-channels when there are commercials playing (causing them to potentially miss the start of a very useful program), throwing away all dead-tree ads they get in the mail (and maybe occasionally a real letter that slipped in between?),... You're of course free to say what you think about it, but it's not the real issue imho.
As I've said before, these blacklists and filtering are consequences of the spam problem. For several people, spam already makes email unusable as a communication medium if they don't filter it out. And if you don't filter, it's quite possible that you accidentally delete legitimate mails while wading through your spam (it has already happened to me). The only difference with automatic filtering is that you don't have to spend time doing it manually, which is a big plus.
As I said in my previous post, blacklists are *not blocking anyone*. People who use the blacklists are blocking other people. If they decide that the advantage of reduced spam outweighs the disadvantage of bouncing some legitimate mails, then this is their and only their choice.
But the ISP's only exist by the grace of the users. The users pay the ISP's, without them there wouldn't be an ISP. And you analogy is completely bogus: people aren't being killed (ie. their IP-addresses aren't being "destroyed" forever). A better analogy, which is often used, is that the spam-supporting (or-ignorant) ISP is similar to bad neighbourhood with lots of gangs and junks etc, and that the recipient of the mails refuses to do business with anyone from there based on that fact.
The only thing necessary to rectify this situation, is that the neighbourhood must be cleaned up. And contrary to "cleaning up a neighbourhood" in real life, cleaning up an ISP by kicking all the spammers is doable in a fairly short period with not that much effort (unless the spammers sue the ISP, although in the end they've always lost until now).
The Internet was indeed designed with the philosophy you mention. And unfortunately, due the spammers, it's become impossible to keep working that way. Just read this article: AT&T's spamfilter fails during a spam avalanche -> their mail servers get overloaded, spam costs the total economy worldwide about $8.6 billion a year,... Isn't that property abuse? Note that no-one is saying that communication an sich is property abuse, but using other people's equipment (without their conscent) to distribute your commercial messages is. It's as if telemarketeers would call you and you had to pay for that. Would you accept that also in the name of freedom of communication?
It's the same with mail servers: originally, they were setup so that anyone could send mail through any mailservers. But then the spammers started using those servers so that a) they can send one copy of the message and 1000 BCC-recipients to it putting most of the distribution burden on that server and b) they are slightly harder to trace, so now all servers should be configured so that they only relay for the intended domains. It's really sad that it has come this far, but I think you cannot blame blacklists for that; after all, they were simply a reaction to the increasing abuse.
On the topic of blacklists: they are all lists of IP-addresses published by individuals or groups of individuals. These people say: we do not accept mail sent from these IP-addresses because (they are open mail relays|they belong to spam-supporting/ignorant ISP's|...). You can also use this list to block mail if you want. No-one's stepping on anyones free speech rights here (the blacklist maintainers simply voice an opinion, they personally don't block mail sent to anyone but themselves). The only problem that can occur here, is that when an ISP uses such a list without clearly informing their customers. But that's a problem with the ISP, not with the list.
After all, even if the list didn't exist, the ISP could still filter mail using its own filters or blacklists. And as long they clearly inform their customers about this, there is no problem: it's their property and their bandwidth that is being used to annoy the hell out of their customers. Some of those customers may prefer to have no filters (since I'm quite sure it's impossible to design a filter without any false positives) and more spam. Then they should not take an account at that ISP (as I've said before, this filtering should be indicated clearly), or maybe the ISP could offer a (more expensive?) unfiltered account to people that want it.
If you don't have that choice for one reason of another, then I still think the only ones to blame for your problem are the spammers: if they didn't spam, there would be no need for blacklists or filtering and everybody would be happy. The rest are just symptoms of the root cause. And while blacklists mainly combat the symptoms (spam instead of the spammers), it's unfortunate that there are simply no better ways (that I know of) in most cases (only if you live in certain states of the US and have lots of time on your hands and manage to track down the spammer, then you can sue him).
It's in all versions of OpenSSH. And 3.3 with privileges separation prevents the bug from being exploited (ie. it still has the bug, but because of the privileges separation, you're box can't be 0wn3d anymore through this exploit).
I thought thas was quite clear from this statement:
However, everyone should update to OpenSSH 3.3 immediately, and enable priv separation in their ssh daemons, by setting this in your/etc/ssh/sshd_config file:
It would be silly if he said that in case the bug was introduced in 3.3
I know those are different, but I was alluding to the fact the KPNQwest wasn't able to get more funding from Qwest.
And it's very clear that you don't follow the spamming situation at all, or you wouldn't post such hilarious statement like "I am sure that none of them accepted spammailers as a viable customer." I suppose you never trace your spam or the spamvertized sites?
The above may be very well true for KPNQwest (and appears to be, according to the other reply to my post), but Qwest just loves spammers (or doesn't care about them spamming at all). Let's just take one spamming operation,
Ernesto Haberli & Co. They operate (among others) the fake ISP's e-connexus.net, gigaipnet.com, transip.net and Americanet.com.ve. These are very active spamming networks (especially the first and the last at the moment):
All those networks are connected through (in some cases among others) Qwest. And Haberli is a very known big-time spammer, just look at hits for his name in news.admin.net-abuse.email, who has even been kicked off C&W and Broadwing (not many spammers can say that).
That's just one spamming gang, of course. If you want the full list of spamming operations (yes, spamming operations, not just companies who spammed once or so) hosted by qwest, see here.
Really, saying that Qwest doesn't support spammers is like saying that Microsoft is an Open Source fanatic.
PS: Zeus is doing fine, thank you:) I'm the Zeus spam-admin currently, fwiw <g>
The efforts to try and sell certain non-critical assets in order to secure sufficient cash proceeds to meet the ongoing obligations of the company have not been successful. This situation is not expected to change over the next 24 hours.
Qwest simply saw its European spam hosting plans go down the drain and called it a day... Hey, maybe those spamsupporters were right after all about the guideline being bad for the economy and all *g*
Someone definitely needs to learn the difference between a filesystem and an OS. Did you also bring back your Linux box because it had the same problem when you inserted a FAT formatted floppy?
That wouldn't help at all. The reason is that almost all spammers send all their mail through open relays which are located in Asia most of the time. Nowadays, they also often tunnel their smtp connections through open http and socks proxies, so even port 25 blocking/intercepting wouldn't help.
The only thing your suggestion would do, is increase the cost of complaining to the originating ISP's about spam sent by their customers.
Yeah, just read this: http://www.clifto.com/8345.html. This guy calculates, using publicly available numbers about the amount of businesses in the USA, that even if only 1% of all *US* companies sends you only 1 message a month, you end up with 8345 ads *PER DAY* in your mail box.
So even if they'd send you only one per year, you'd still get on average about 695 ads per day. So people, instead of JHD (Just Hit Delete), please try to find the time to figure out where the spam was sent from and where the spamvertized sites are hosted and report the spammers or they things may become very ugly...
Q: How does the project relates to Origin Systems, legal owner of copyright?
A: Origin Systems, affiliated to Eletronic Arts has no part on the development of the game, although Peroxide has informal allowance to develop the game and gain attention of the media, since there is no marketing and financing involved.
The stock 20GB Maxtor in my G4/400 is completely silent as well, I can't even hear it when I put my ear against the case (of the computer, not of the drive:)
I'm really curious what all those people who want to ban violent video games in response to the Columbine tragedy are going to say now... Are they going to ban all school punishment now as well? Or will they simply use this story as an argument to "show" that geeks are "mentally unstable"?
I was looking (anno 1996) for a 32 bit successor to Turbo Pascal. I downloaded the Free Pascal Compiler from a BBS (didn't have web access yet back then). The first time I did so, I didn't think it was very usable (it crashed more then compiling).
The next time (in 1997), it was already a lot more usable, but the optimizer was basically non-existent. Since I liked tinkering with assembler, I started on the peephole optimizer, submitted some patches (by email) and after half a year or so I got CVS access. I've never regretted starting on it.
BTW: this story also contains a quite valuable tip (imho) for people who want to start a (successful) open source project: make sure you are prepared to work on it alone for quite a while until it becomes usable. Only then most people will join in to help.
... the local variant of the RIAA has been actively monitoring which people from Belgium download songs via Napster and sending letters to their ISP's to shut down their internet access... And ISP's do comply (most of the time the firt time you get a warning, the second time you loose your access).
If OS X runs on BSD, and Microsoft apps run on OS X, doesn't that mean that they're running on BSD? And after that, how
much of a stretch is it to have Office and so on running on plain BSD without the Mac layers?
A very big stretch. First of all, MS Office will only be carbonized (at first?). This means it will still be a Mac program using a subset of the standard Mac toolbox which Apple has deemed suitable for use in a true multi-threaded/multi-tasking environment. Even if it were afterwards converted to the COCOA API, it wouldn't be one step closer to running on plain BSD. Maybe GNUStep, but that's all...
Maybe, just maybe
somebody else out there can take $600 retail worth of hardware, stick it inside a plexiglass fish bowl, sell it for $1299 and they too can be marked as innovating design.
The only problem with this is that they can't sell it:) Compaq tried, they gave up. Dell tried, they gave up. It's just not as easy as putting some computer hardware in some flashy plastics. Don't ask me what else you need... Steve Jobs' showmanship?
What restrictions does (Free/Delphi) Pascal have compared to Java?
The ability to link to libraries has nothing to do with a language, it's handled by the compiler/linker. Both FPC and Delphi can link to C libraries without any problems (and using exactly the same syntax). I don't know about Delphi, but FPC can't use C++ stuff in libraries, though we're working on that
I personally prefer begin..end to {..}. One reason is that people are much less inclined to write "end end end;" then "}}}", which improves the readablility of code quite a bit (and even if you indent properly, it's imho much easier to see which begin..end pairs correspond than which {..} pairs). It's just a matter of personal taste, not a reason why one language would be more suited to "real application development" (whatever that may be) than the other
you not being able to imagine anyone in your company doing serious work in Pascal is probably because everyone there is about as prejudiced as you regarding Pascal ("It's good as a beginners and teaching language, but that's about it..."-mentality)
C++ may be standardized, but try moving a large C++ project from one compiler (e.g. MS VC++) to another (BC++, G++). You'll find you'll have to make quite a bit of changes to get it to compile. The problem is that the C++ standard has been evolving almost constantly, although it seems it's finally settling down.
ANSI Pascal and Extended Pascal (the official Pascal standards) have never been really popular, almost all Pascal development has been done in one or other UCSB (sp?) Pascal dialect (Borland Pascal/Delphi, Apple Pascal,...). I suppose (hope) that one day the ISO will see this and create a new Pascal standard based on this, with extra features in it such as operator overloading etc. Until then, it's mainly Borland who sets the standard and us following it (unless there are things which Borland hasn't implemented yet, such as operator overloading).
Slashdot Mirror
Because in the past, anyone who wanted to work on Darwin had to supply his patches to Apple, the ISC (Internet Software Consortium) and Apple together founded OpenDarwin.org to improve the way Darwin can develop as a stand-alone OS. The reason is that it's now a lot easier to get commit access. Apple engineers still work together with the general public to guide the project and interesting patches will be merged in Apple's Darwin distribution as well (and yes, reversely, Apple's changes are also merged in the OpenDarwin tree).
Jonas
Have a look at Apple's XServe pages. The basic functionality is indeed quite similar to that of other Unix servers (which is exactly the point that the author of the article was trying to make, I think). The extra's are very nice remote management and diagnostic utilities, ease of maintenance (just slide it out of its cover) and some Mac-specific things like allowing other Macs to netboot from it.
Jonas
The main reason they still included Mac OS 9 was simply that a lot of people buying macs also had a Mac in the past and those people want to be able to still run older programs, which haven't (yet) been ported to Mac OS X, on their new computer. Backward compatibility, you know.
Finally, yes, the current/previous versions of Mac OS X are/were quite a bit slower than Mac OS 9 (although not in all regards, e.g. disk performance is already a lot better than in 9; it's mainly the GUI responsiveness imho), but otoh Mac OS X keeps getting faster and faster (and I hope 10.2 will solve this, for me, final issue). I for one am glad they first worked on stability and only then on optimizations. The way they're doing it now, you can really use the computer under OS X (I've barely booted in Mac OS 9 anymore since even Mac OS X Public Beta); if they'd done it the other way round, you'd be bitching even more I think.
Jonas
As I've said before, these blacklists and filtering are consequences of the spam problem. For several people, spam already makes email unusable as a communication medium if they don't filter it out. And if you don't filter, it's quite possible that you accidentally delete legitimate mails while wading through your spam (it has already happened to me). The only difference with automatic filtering is that you don't have to spend time doing it manually, which is a big plus.
Jonas
As I said in my previous post, blacklists are *not blocking anyone*. People who use the blacklists are blocking other people. If they decide that the advantage of reduced spam outweighs the disadvantage of bouncing some legitimate mails, then this is their and only their choice.
Jonas
The only thing necessary to rectify this situation, is that the neighbourhood must be cleaned up. And contrary to "cleaning up a neighbourhood" in real life, cleaning up an ISP by kicking all the spammers is doable in a fairly short period with not that much effort (unless the spammers sue the ISP, although in the end they've always lost until now).
The Internet was indeed designed with the philosophy you mention. And unfortunately, due the spammers, it's become impossible to keep working that way. Just read this article: AT&T's spamfilter fails during a spam avalanche -> their mail servers get overloaded, spam costs the total economy worldwide about $8.6 billion a year, ... Isn't that property abuse? Note that no-one is saying that communication an sich is property abuse, but using other people's equipment (without their conscent) to distribute your commercial messages is. It's as if telemarketeers would call you and you had to pay for that. Would you accept that also in the name of freedom of communication?
It's the same with mail servers: originally, they were setup so that anyone could send mail through any mailservers. But then the spammers started using those servers so that a) they can send one copy of the message and 1000 BCC-recipients to it putting most of the distribution burden on that server and b) they are slightly harder to trace, so now all servers should be configured so that they only relay for the intended domains. It's really sad that it has come this far, but I think you cannot blame blacklists for that; after all, they were simply a reaction to the increasing abuse.
On the topic of blacklists: they are all lists of IP-addresses published by individuals or groups of individuals. These people say: we do not accept mail sent from these IP-addresses because (they are open mail relays|they belong to spam-supporting/ignorant ISP's|...). You can also use this list to block mail if you want. No-one's stepping on anyones free speech rights here (the blacklist maintainers simply voice an opinion, they personally don't block mail sent to anyone but themselves). The only problem that can occur here, is that when an ISP uses such a list without clearly informing their customers. But that's a problem with the ISP, not with the list.
After all, even if the list didn't exist, the ISP could still filter mail using its own filters or blacklists. And as long they clearly inform their customers about this, there is no problem: it's their property and their bandwidth that is being used to annoy the hell out of their customers. Some of those customers may prefer to have no filters (since I'm quite sure it's impossible to design a filter without any false positives) and more spam. Then they should not take an account at that ISP (as I've said before, this filtering should be indicated clearly), or maybe the ISP could offer a (more expensive?) unfiltered account to people that want it.
If you don't have that choice for one reason of another, then I still think the only ones to blame for your problem are the spammers: if they didn't spam, there would be no need for blacklists or filtering and everybody would be happy. The rest are just symptoms of the root cause. And while blacklists mainly combat the symptoms (spam instead of the spammers), it's unfortunate that there are simply no better ways (that I know of) in most cases (only if you live in certain states of the US and have lots of time on your hands and manage to track down the spammer, then you can sue him).
Jonas
I thought thas was quite clear from this statement:
It would be silly if he said that in case the bug was introduced in 3.3There is no G4/350 AGP, only a G4/350 PCI.
And it's very clear that you don't follow the spamming situation at all, or you wouldn't post such hilarious statement like "I am sure that none of them accepted spammailers as a viable customer." I suppose you never trace your spam or the spamvertized sites?
The above may be very well true for KPNQwest (and appears to be, according to the other reply to my post), but Qwest just loves spammers (or doesn't care about them spamming at all). Let's just take one spamming operation, Ernesto Haberli & Co. They operate (among others) the fake ISP's e-connexus.net, gigaipnet.com, transip.net and Americanet.com.ve. These are very active spamming networks (especially the first and the last at the moment):
-
Postings in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
- Spamhaus entry
- SPEWS entry
- bitchlist.net entry
All those networks are connected through (in some cases among others) Qwest. And Haberli is a very known big-time spammer, just look at hits for his name in news.admin.net-abuse.email, who has even been kicked off C&W and Broadwing (not many spammers can say that).That's just one spamming gang, of course. If you want the full list of spamming operations (yes, spamming operations, not just companies who spammed once or so) hosted by qwest, see here.
Really, saying that Qwest doesn't support spammers is like saying that Microsoft is an Open Source fanatic.
PS: Zeus is doing fine, thank you :) I'm the Zeus spam-admin currently, fwiw <g>
Now why would this be? Let's see:
Qwest simply saw its European spam hosting plans go down the drain and called it a day... Hey, maybe those spamsupporters were right after all about the guideline being bad for the economy and all *g*
Someone definitely needs to learn the difference between a filesystem and an OS. Did you also bring back your Linux box because it had the same problem when you inserted a FAT formatted floppy?
The only thing your suggestion would do, is increase the cost of complaining to the originating ISP's about spam sent by their customers.
So even if they'd send you only one per year, you'd still get on average about 695 ads per day. So people, instead of JHD (Just Hit Delete), please try to find the time to figure out where the spam was sent from and where the spamvertized sites are hosted and report the spammers or they things may become very ugly...
Jonas
Q: How does the project relates to Origin Systems, legal owner of copyright?
A: Origin Systems, affiliated to Eletronic Arts has no part on the development of the game, although Peroxide has informal allowance to develop the game and gain attention of the media, since there is no marketing and financing involved.
Actually, I think this is a perfect job for the PowerBook G4 *Titanium* :)
Jonas
The stock 20GB Maxtor in my G4/400 is completely silent as well, I can't even hear it when I put my ear against the case (of the computer, not of the drive :)
--
Whatever the outcome, it's a very sad story...
--
What's the difference with OpenPackages.org?
--
The next time (in 1997), it was already a lot more usable, but the optimizer was basically non-existent. Since I liked tinkering with assembler, I started on the peephole optimizer, submitted some patches (by email) and after half a year or so I got CVS access. I've never regretted starting on it.
BTW: this story also contains a quite valuable tip (imho) for people who want to start a (successful) open source project: make sure you are prepared to work on it alone for quite a while until it becomes usable. Only then most people will join in to help.
--
Combine it with the Free Pascal Compiler and you should have a complete open source solution (iff the Kylix IDE indeed gets open sourced)
--
... the local variant of the RIAA has been actively monitoring which people from Belgium download songs via Napster and sending letters to their ISP's to shut down their internet access... And ISP's do comply (most of the time the firt time you get a warning, the second time you loose your access).
--
--
--
--
ANSI Pascal and Extended Pascal (the official Pascal standards) have never been really popular, almost all Pascal development has been done in one or other UCSB (sp?) Pascal dialect (Borland Pascal/Delphi, Apple Pascal, ...). I suppose (hope) that one day the ISO will see this and create a new Pascal standard based on this, with extra features in it such as operator overloading etc. Until then, it's mainly Borland who sets the standard and us following it (unless there are things which Borland hasn't implemented yet, such as operator overloading).
--