Does CA's ingres allow for master-master replication? Do you know of any other databases (at all) that do? It's not totally transparent with MySQL, but the only change I need to make is breaking up my primary keys to multipart primaries. Not much work, but it would be MUCH nicer if auto increment fields just worked properly even when the two databases were disconnected.
The reason I use it is that MySQL allows for easy master-master replication. PostGreSQL doesn't, though they are working on it. Looks like it may be a while before they get it working, though.
I agree with your P4 to G4 Mhz comparison, my comparisons showed this to be approximately true. Actually, my comparisons showed, Mhz for Mhz, a G4 was approximately equal to an Athlon XP, which of course is quite a bit faster than a P4. This was solely for compiling source code, I didn't really care much for other tasks. I did not have a chance to compare a G5 vs. an Athlon64 or against an Opteron, that would be fun.
Anyway, I'm not presuming that a 3.0 Ghz P4 is equal to a 3.0 Ghz G4, only that, with 80% efficiency (as per the press release), it would still be faster than a 1.25 Ghz G4 (bottom-end eMac).
Note that ncix.com in Canada has a P4 3.0 Ghz CPU for $252.73, or approximately $200 U.S. I'm not convinced you can build an Athlon rig (motherboard, CPU, memory, case) for anything close to that, though you can get the Athlon64 3000+ chip (alone) for less.
Anyway, as I've said in other posts, my next PC will almost certainly be built around an Athlon64. However, I still say that if I wanted a Wintel machine as my primary system and a system capable of running OS X for rare occasional builds and testing (say, once a week as per my previous job), a $50 U.S. emulator package and a decent Wintel/Linux system makes a lot more sense than a decent Wintel/Linux system and a low-end Apple eMac. Approximately $600 U.S. more sense, actually, and I'd end up with a faster OS X environment anyway if the PR is to be believed (and I have serious doubts).
Now, I suppose it is conceivable that it may make more sense to go for a high-end G5 and run Windows and Linux on it as well as OS X, but that's not what I'm discussing here.
You say most of your development is on ix86 machines. Glad to know you don't use AMD chips. So anyhow what systems is the rest of your development on?
AMD runs ix86 code just fine. I'm currently doing all my development on computers with Intel chips in them but in the past, I've happily used AMD chips. I expect my next computer will be an Athlon64.
Do you honestly think that an emulated processor and random PC hardware are going to provide a reliable setup for testing OS X apps?
VMWare provides a reliable setup for developing in Linux and testing on Windows. I would hope an OS X emulator would do similar.
And what are you just going to suddenly decide to dable in OS X development and suddenly create some app that people are going to want?
Not at all, I'm going to recompile an app that I have developed for Windows using Trolltech's Qt, if any customer wants an OS X version. I've done the same in the past and have successfully delivered cross-platform applications this way.
And trust me the eMac will be faster than any emulation you are going to be doing!
Not according to the press release. I don't believe the press release, mind you, but I am keeping an open mind.
I mean god man what would you be writing that would run slowly on a 1.25Ghz G4 anyhow?? What kind of software do you write? Nevermind I don't think I want to know.
It doesn't run slowly at all, even on hideously underpowered machines. However, it takes quite a while to compile. Including associated libraries, a full recompile takes a couple of hours on a 3.0 Ghz P4. Last time I checked, it was taking a little over six hours on a 1.0 Ghz G4. This is why I'd prefer OS X running at about 80% of the speed of my Linux system instead of running at 100% the speed of a low-end eMac. It'd also make testing and recompiling quite a bit faster. This all assumes the press release is close when they say 80% (though provided they provide 50% of the speed, that'd be good enough for me).
Most of my software development takes place on ix86 machines, targetting Windows and less often, Linux. It just isn't worth the cost for me to buy an Apple computer.
I'm not saying they aren't good value for money or anything. But if I could compile and test software for OS X on my ix86 system, that could well be worth the purchase price of the software and a license for OS X. Provided, of course, it is fully compatible and runs at a decent speed.
Heck, if they really are close to 80%, this is a pretty good deal. If I was to buy Apple hardware anyway, just for testing, I'd likely end up with a 1.25 Ghz eMac or whatever. The emulation route would result in a much faster OS X system for me as my ix86 computer is generally always quite high-end.
Re:Meanwhile, C++ goes nowhere
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm curious, why do we still get buffer overflows in C++ code? I mean, the C++ string type and the vector container have been around for the better part of a decade now, and a standard part of the language for, what, six years? Seven years? And you can grab smart pointers from boost.
So, why do we still have buffer overflows? Is it because of the language? I think my previous paragraph shows that this is no longer the cause, and hasn't been for years. On the other hand, C++ does still allow you to make use of C-style strings, unchecked arrays, etc., so perhaps we can blame C++ because it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot, you just have to be very explicit these days. Or perhaps the problem actually lies in the hideously outdated libraries that people are using, libraries such as the ones Microsoft gives you (I'm not talking.Net here, haven't looked at that) which still inexcusably use C-style strings and generally unsafe memory management. Not that Microsoft is solely to blame, of course.
First, I wasn't comparing a bottom-end Dell against a dual G5, I was comparing against an eMac. Really only an Athlon64 or an Opteron system (preferably dual Opteron) can really compare against the dual G5s.
And yes, it is a small business, 15 employees. We already have licenses for Windows XP (and also run Linux on some systems). We don't have gigabit ethernet and honestly, there's no reason we need it in the next few years. Certainly, 512 megs is nice if you are doing much of anything on a computer (my workstation has 1 gig of RAM and that's just barely enough), but let us remember that the eMac has only 256 megs of RAM. In fact, not until you hit the dual 2 Ghz G5 Powermac does the system come with more than that as default.
Anyway, apart from the gigabit ethernet, which wouldn't help us, I really don't think we'd need a Quadro4 as a minimum for business. Heck, most of our users do nothing other than MS Office all day. In any case, I don't think you can even get a comparable card in any Mac (i, e, or Power).
So, I must say that I think you are going overboard for a low-end PC. You quote over $1200, I quoted a little over $400. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
The media-rich machines come, by default, with very underpowered video cards these days. In all fairness, though, you can upgrade at least the high-end Powermacs to a high-end video card, and it is probably reasonable to upgrade this 6 months after purchase if you care about media richness.
On the other hand, Apple won't sell you a DVD+-RW, something I think is a terrible oversight when it comes to DVD burning. I don't know, perhaps you can answer this for me. Can you replace the apple optical drive with an after market DVD+-RW? If so, great. Apple users may find themselves having to upgrade that 6 months after purchase. Or immediately, if they require a DVD+-RW now, or capabilities to write dual-layer.
As to the Mhz myth, no I certainly don't buy it. However, in my testing, a G4 clocking at 1 Ghz runs the tasks I want it to run (primarily compiling software) at approximately the same speed as a 1 Ghz Athlon XP, and therefore quite a bit faster than a 1 Ghz P4. However, a 1.25 Ghz G4 (in the low-end eMac) simply cannot hold a candle against a 2.4 Ghz Celeron (in the Dell low-end), not for the tasks I want it for. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any serious task that a 1.25 Ghz G4 could do faster than a 2.4 Ghz Celeron.
I hope you aren't buying into Apple salesmen's claim that a G4 runs twice as fast as a Wintel machine, because it just doesn't. The G5 is a much more powerful CPU than a G4, of course, but now we start comparing it against Athlon64 and Opteron CPUs, and you certainly don't see the G5 giving substantially more performance, clock-for-clock, than the Athlon64 and Opteron chips, not in comprehensive benchmarks.
On the other hand, the PowerMacs have very very nice FSBs and lots more space to add oodles of RAM. No PCI-Express but that's not likely to make a difference for another year.
And just for the record, virtually any motherboard I look at supports Firewire these days, though I strongly suspect many low-end Dell systems (and for all I know, high-end Dell systems) do not.
This time next year, I'll be looking to buy a new computer for my home. My budget will be roughly $3000 Canadian, putting me in the market for a low to mid-range Power Mac (I already have a monitor).
I will at that time seriously consider a Mac. I figure I'll be able to pick up a 3.5 Ghz Athlon 64 (that is real speed, not the model number), 2 - 4 gigs of RAM, two 300 gigabyte hard drives, and two optical drives (DVD+-RW dual layer and a DVD-ROM). Also, a mid-range $200 video card that's comparable or better than the current top-of-the-line. I will be wanting firewire and the like, so much (though by no means all) that is bundled with the Apple is stuff I'll be paying for one way or another.
I'll be looking closely at the PowerMacs then. I'm willing to sacrifice some processing power because, hey, the PowerMac will probably be dual-processor while I'd likely go with a single processor Athlon64 solution. So, perhaps, a dual 2.5 Ghz or Dual 3.0 Ghz PowerMac, and I'd go after-market on the extra RAM and hard drives (Apple charges a premium). I truly hope Apple will be selling something close to these specs for around $2400 U.S. by then, it'll make my life much more interesting. And it is certainly possible.
There's no doubt that OS X is superior to Windows XP. There's a few things I find missing compared to KDE (smart window positioning, snap-to windows, etc.) but I'm sure I'd find enough in OS X but missing in KDE to make me happy. And while I don't care much for iTunes, I think even Bill Gates would admit it is nicer than Windows Media Player.:)
Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review...
on
The Ultimate MacDate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Thank you, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware is competitive if and only if you really want all of the hardware they bundle together. Lots of people don't need a DVD-ROM/CD-RW (or want a DVD+-RW) drive. Lots of people don't want a firewire connector. Lots of people already own a monitor and so don't need a built-in LCD monitor.
Yes, if you want all of that, the Apple bundles are very competitive. Great. But lots of people (and lots of businesses, especially) don't want them. If they decide to go the Apple route, they have to pay for these things anyway.
Now, had I been arguing feature-richness, your point would be valid. But as I was only talking about price competition, it isn't.
And by the way, the bottom-end Dell system I priced out came with a CPU much more powerful for our needs (and yes, I'm not just comparing clock speeds) and twice the hard drive space. So while the PC was missing some features from the Mac, the Mac was a lot further down the features scale if CPU power and hard drive space are important considerations. They are for me, they aren't for the average office employee.
I'm not saying the bottom-end Dell kicks the Apple's butt. But you (third-person) also can't say the bottom-end Apple is superior in every way to a bottom-end Dell as this is clearly false.
Re:A bit underwhelmed by the review...
on
The Ultimate MacDate
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
A slightly cheaper PC? We had to replace a computer at work. We just wanted a low-end system, already had a monitor. We were pricing systems out and found Dell offered a system for $419 U.S. (including the mail-in rebate). This is a Dell Dimension 2400, sans monitor. Comes with a 2.4 Ghz Celeron CPU, 80 gigabyte hard drive, Windows XP Home Edition with SP2, etc.
Now, we didn't end up going with the Dell, we got a cheaper computer locally.
Please price me out a similar Apple machine. The closest we could find was almost twice as expensive. I certainly don't think that is price-competitive.
Now, granted, if you want the specific parts that Apple bundles with their Mac (or makes available as an option), their prices do tend to be quite competitive with the Wintel world. But not everyone wants a DVD burner (or they want a REAL burner, one that can do DVD+-RW), or wireless network access, or any of the other things you tend to get bundled with Apple desktops and workstations.
I'm not trying to get into a flame war here. Apple computers are very nice. Their bottom-end systems are pretty decent, but they aren't price-competitive with Wintel bottom-end systems. Their higher-end G5s are probably more competitive because you are more likely to want the extras they throw in.
In Canada, your personal information is protected by the PIPED Act. Such a situation as you are describing with your rental office would be illegal in Canada. They have no option but to perform due dilligence in securing your personal information. That means antivirus software if they are running Windows, a decent hardware, encrypted records if necessary, no relying on MS Office (older versions) to encrypt documents, no emailing personal information through unsecured channels, etc. etc. If they aren't following through ("no problems in the past", etc.), you can complain to the Privacy Commissioner and there'll be hell to pay. I know a small business that was recently slapped with fines and a public reprimand for accidentally faxing personal records to the wrong fax number.
Read up on the article available here. While you may consider this a success, very few people could afford the kind of costs necessary to fight a case like this (hence, the EFF). Heck, I personally couldn't afford a lawyer at all at the moment (hence, I have been unable to collect on a $20,000 court judgment in my favour). Furthermore, it took them more than three years to get the settlement. Very few small businesses could survive something like that. Steve Jackson Games almost didn't, and had to lay off eight employees. These employees didn't receive any compensation.
You may consider this a success, I consider this (and other similar cases) a perfect example of the system failing.
Could you please explain to me what the recourse is if the search wasn't valid (but a judge signed off on the warrant anyway)?
While I appreciate the checks and balances involved which requires a search warrant, there are plenty of examples of warrants issued without a real basis... the whole cyberpunk fiasco, for example. And there's really nothing you can do as recourse, once your stuff is taken, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye.
This would presumably only work locally though, right? I mean, if you send an email to me across the Internet (and I use a different email client), your status won't be updated. You have no way of knowing whether or not I opened the email because I am not sending anything back to you.
The vast majority of software that is written (something around 80% based on number of lines of code written, though I don't have the reference for this figure readily at hand) is never released outside of the company. That is to say, it is for internal use.
Provided you aren't releasing trade secrets, your company may see significant benefit to releasing this software. You were going to write it anyway, by releasing it perhaps someone else can improve it or send you bug fixes for free.
So, you get paid because you are employed by your company. The company benefits with better quality software.
No great secret, but something people tend to forget when they think of software programmers.
While I agree with you that MS Office (and especially MS Word) are the industry standard, you may be aware that MS Office does not have great MS Office-compatibility. Yes, you read that correctly. Just changing a printer that your document is set to print with may break your carefully laid out paginations. This is much more likely to happen if you transfer your document to a different version of Office or especially from the Windows to the Mac version.
And of course, you cannot expect that many of your plugin objects will work on the Mac version of MS Office if you created the document in the Windows version, or vice versa.
Perhaps my definition of compatibility is a little strict, but it certainly seems reasonable to me to expect I'd be able to open a document created in MS Office on a different computer and it would look and print exactly the same. This simply is not the case.
I cannot speak for Openoffice. It may be no better.
Slashdot Mirror
MySQL supports master-master replication, I use it all the time.
Does CA's ingres allow for master-master replication? Do you know of any other databases (at all) that do? It's not totally transparent with MySQL, but the only change I need to make is breaking up my primary keys to multipart primaries. Not much work, but it would be MUCH nicer if auto increment fields just worked properly even when the two databases were disconnected.
The reason I use it is that MySQL allows for easy master-master replication. PostGreSQL doesn't, though they are working on it. Looks like it may be a while before they get it working, though.
I agree with your P4 to G4 Mhz comparison, my comparisons showed this to be approximately true. Actually, my comparisons showed, Mhz for Mhz, a G4 was approximately equal to an Athlon XP, which of course is quite a bit faster than a P4. This was solely for compiling source code, I didn't really care much for other tasks. I did not have a chance to compare a G5 vs. an Athlon64 or against an Opteron, that would be fun.
Anyway, I'm not presuming that a 3.0 Ghz P4 is equal to a 3.0 Ghz G4, only that, with 80% efficiency (as per the press release), it would still be faster than a 1.25 Ghz G4 (bottom-end eMac).
Note that ncix.com in Canada has a P4 3.0 Ghz CPU for $252.73, or approximately $200 U.S. I'm not convinced you can build an Athlon rig (motherboard, CPU, memory, case) for anything close to that, though you can get the Athlon64 3000+ chip (alone) for less.
Anyway, as I've said in other posts, my next PC will almost certainly be built around an Athlon64. However, I still say that if I wanted a Wintel machine as my primary system and a system capable of running OS X for rare occasional builds and testing (say, once a week as per my previous job), a $50 U.S. emulator package and a decent Wintel/Linux system makes a lot more sense than a decent Wintel/Linux system and a low-end Apple eMac. Approximately $600 U.S. more sense, actually, and I'd end up with a faster OS X environment anyway if the PR is to be believed (and I have serious doubts).
Now, I suppose it is conceivable that it may make more sense to go for a high-end G5 and run Windows and Linux on it as well as OS X, but that's not what I'm discussing here.
AMD runs ix86 code just fine. I'm currently doing all my development on computers with Intel chips in them but in the past, I've happily used AMD chips. I expect my next computer will be an Athlon64.
VMWare provides a reliable setup for developing in Linux and testing on Windows. I would hope an OS X emulator would do similar.
Not at all, I'm going to recompile an app that I have developed for Windows using Trolltech's Qt, if any customer wants an OS X version. I've done the same in the past and have successfully delivered cross-platform applications this way.
Not according to the press release. I don't believe the press release, mind you, but I am keeping an open mind.
It doesn't run slowly at all, even on hideously underpowered machines. However, it takes quite a while to compile. Including associated libraries, a full recompile takes a couple of hours on a 3.0 Ghz P4. Last time I checked, it was taking a little over six hours on a 1.0 Ghz G4. This is why I'd prefer OS X running at about 80% of the speed of my Linux system instead of running at 100% the speed of a low-end eMac. It'd also make testing and recompiling quite a bit faster. This all assumes the press release is close when they say 80% (though provided they provide 50% of the speed, that'd be good enough for me).
Software development should be done with a very powerful computer. However, testing the optimisation should be done on a much slower system.
Most of my software development takes place on ix86 machines, targetting Windows and less often, Linux. It just isn't worth the cost for me to buy an Apple computer.
I'm not saying they aren't good value for money or anything. But if I could compile and test software for OS X on my ix86 system, that could well be worth the purchase price of the software and a license for OS X. Provided, of course, it is fully compatible and runs at a decent speed.
Heck, if they really are close to 80%, this is a pretty good deal. If I was to buy Apple hardware anyway, just for testing, I'd likely end up with a 1.25 Ghz eMac or whatever. The emulation route would result in a much faster OS X system for me as my ix86 computer is generally always quite high-end.
I'm curious, why do we still get buffer overflows in C++ code? I mean, the C++ string type and the vector container have been around for the better part of a decade now, and a standard part of the language for, what, six years? Seven years? And you can grab smart pointers from boost.
.Net here, haven't looked at that) which still inexcusably use C-style strings and generally unsafe memory management. Not that Microsoft is solely to blame, of course.
So, why do we still have buffer overflows? Is it because of the language? I think my previous paragraph shows that this is no longer the cause, and hasn't been for years. On the other hand, C++ does still allow you to make use of C-style strings, unchecked arrays, etc., so perhaps we can blame C++ because it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot, you just have to be very explicit these days. Or perhaps the problem actually lies in the hideously outdated libraries that people are using, libraries such as the ones Microsoft gives you (I'm not talking
First, I wasn't comparing a bottom-end Dell against a dual G5, I was comparing against an eMac. Really only an Athlon64 or an Opteron system (preferably dual Opteron) can really compare against the dual G5s.
And yes, it is a small business, 15 employees. We already have licenses for Windows XP (and also run Linux on some systems). We don't have gigabit ethernet and honestly, there's no reason we need it in the next few years. Certainly, 512 megs is nice if you are doing much of anything on a computer (my workstation has 1 gig of RAM and that's just barely enough), but let us remember that the eMac has only 256 megs of RAM. In fact, not until you hit the dual 2 Ghz G5 Powermac does the system come with more than that as default.
Anyway, apart from the gigabit ethernet, which wouldn't help us, I really don't think we'd need a Quadro4 as a minimum for business. Heck, most of our users do nothing other than MS Office all day. In any case, I don't think you can even get a comparable card in any Mac (i, e, or Power).
So, I must say that I think you are going overboard for a low-end PC. You quote over $1200, I quoted a little over $400. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
The media-rich machines come, by default, with very underpowered video cards these days. In all fairness, though, you can upgrade at least the high-end Powermacs to a high-end video card, and it is probably reasonable to upgrade this 6 months after purchase if you care about media richness.
On the other hand, Apple won't sell you a DVD+-RW, something I think is a terrible oversight when it comes to DVD burning. I don't know, perhaps you can answer this for me. Can you replace the apple optical drive with an after market DVD+-RW? If so, great. Apple users may find themselves having to upgrade that 6 months after purchase. Or immediately, if they require a DVD+-RW now, or capabilities to write dual-layer.
As to the Mhz myth, no I certainly don't buy it. However, in my testing, a G4 clocking at 1 Ghz runs the tasks I want it to run (primarily compiling software) at approximately the same speed as a 1 Ghz Athlon XP, and therefore quite a bit faster than a 1 Ghz P4. However, a 1.25 Ghz G4 (in the low-end eMac) simply cannot hold a candle against a 2.4 Ghz Celeron (in the Dell low-end), not for the tasks I want it for. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any serious task that a 1.25 Ghz G4 could do faster than a 2.4 Ghz Celeron.
I hope you aren't buying into Apple salesmen's claim that a G4 runs twice as fast as a Wintel machine, because it just doesn't. The G5 is a much more powerful CPU than a G4, of course, but now we start comparing it against Athlon64 and Opteron CPUs, and you certainly don't see the G5 giving substantially more performance, clock-for-clock, than the Athlon64 and Opteron chips, not in comprehensive benchmarks.
On the other hand, the PowerMacs have very very nice FSBs and lots more space to add oodles of RAM. No PCI-Express but that's not likely to make a difference for another year.
And just for the record, virtually any motherboard I look at supports Firewire these days, though I strongly suspect many low-end Dell systems (and for all I know, high-end Dell systems) do not.
This time next year, I'll be looking to buy a new computer for my home. My budget will be roughly $3000 Canadian, putting me in the market for a low to mid-range Power Mac (I already have a monitor).
:)
I will at that time seriously consider a Mac. I figure I'll be able to pick up a 3.5 Ghz Athlon 64 (that is real speed, not the model number), 2 - 4 gigs of RAM, two 300 gigabyte hard drives, and two optical drives (DVD+-RW dual layer and a DVD-ROM). Also, a mid-range $200 video card that's comparable or better than the current top-of-the-line. I will be wanting firewire and the like, so much (though by no means all) that is bundled with the Apple is stuff I'll be paying for one way or another.
I'll be looking closely at the PowerMacs then. I'm willing to sacrifice some processing power because, hey, the PowerMac will probably be dual-processor while I'd likely go with a single processor Athlon64 solution. So, perhaps, a dual 2.5 Ghz or Dual 3.0 Ghz PowerMac, and I'd go after-market on the extra RAM and hard drives (Apple charges a premium). I truly hope Apple will be selling something close to these specs for around $2400 U.S. by then, it'll make my life much more interesting. And it is certainly possible.
There's no doubt that OS X is superior to Windows XP. There's a few things I find missing compared to KDE (smart window positioning, snap-to windows, etc.) but I'm sure I'd find enough in OS X but missing in KDE to make me happy. And while I don't care much for iTunes, I think even Bill Gates would admit it is nicer than Windows Media Player.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. Apple hardware is competitive if and only if you really want all of the hardware they bundle together. Lots of people don't need a DVD-ROM/CD-RW (or want a DVD+-RW) drive. Lots of people don't want a firewire connector. Lots of people already own a monitor and so don't need a built-in LCD monitor.
Yes, if you want all of that, the Apple bundles are very competitive. Great. But lots of people (and lots of businesses, especially) don't want them. If they decide to go the Apple route, they have to pay for these things anyway.
Now, had I been arguing feature-richness, your point would be valid. But as I was only talking about price competition, it isn't.
And by the way, the bottom-end Dell system I priced out came with a CPU much more powerful for our needs (and yes, I'm not just comparing clock speeds) and twice the hard drive space. So while the PC was missing some features from the Mac, the Mac was a lot further down the features scale if CPU power and hard drive space are important considerations. They are for me, they aren't for the average office employee.
I'm not saying the bottom-end Dell kicks the Apple's butt. But you (third-person) also can't say the bottom-end Apple is superior in every way to a bottom-end Dell as this is clearly false.
A slightly cheaper PC? We had to replace a computer at work. We just wanted a low-end system, already had a monitor. We were pricing systems out and found Dell offered a system for $419 U.S. (including the mail-in rebate). This is a Dell Dimension 2400, sans monitor. Comes with a 2.4 Ghz Celeron CPU, 80 gigabyte hard drive, Windows XP Home Edition with SP2, etc.
Now, we didn't end up going with the Dell, we got a cheaper computer locally.
Please price me out a similar Apple machine. The closest we could find was almost twice as expensive. I certainly don't think that is price-competitive.
Now, granted, if you want the specific parts that Apple bundles with their Mac (or makes available as an option), their prices do tend to be quite competitive with the Wintel world. But not everyone wants a DVD burner (or they want a REAL burner, one that can do DVD+-RW), or wireless network access, or any of the other things you tend to get bundled with Apple desktops and workstations.
I'm not trying to get into a flame war here. Apple computers are very nice. Their bottom-end systems are pretty decent, but they aren't price-competitive with Wintel bottom-end systems. Their higher-end G5s are probably more competitive because you are more likely to want the extras they throw in.
Edit, still part of Windows XP, also uses CRLF.
In Canada, your personal information is protected by the PIPED Act. Such a situation as you are describing with your rental office would be illegal in Canada. They have no option but to perform due dilligence in securing your personal information. That means antivirus software if they are running Windows, a decent hardware, encrypted records if necessary, no relying on MS Office (older versions) to encrypt documents, no emailing personal information through unsecured channels, etc. etc. If they aren't following through ("no problems in the past", etc.), you can complain to the Privacy Commissioner and there'll be hell to pay. I know a small business that was recently slapped with fines and a public reprimand for accidentally faxing personal records to the wrong fax number.
Read up on the article available here. While you may consider this a success, very few people could afford the kind of costs necessary to fight a case like this (hence, the EFF). Heck, I personally couldn't afford a lawyer at all at the moment (hence, I have been unable to collect on a $20,000 court judgment in my favour). Furthermore, it took them more than three years to get the settlement. Very few small businesses could survive something like that. Steve Jackson Games almost didn't, and had to lay off eight employees. These employees didn't receive any compensation.
You may consider this a success, I consider this (and other similar cases) a perfect example of the system failing.
Could you please explain to me what the recourse is if the search wasn't valid (but a judge signed off on the warrant anyway)?
While I appreciate the checks and balances involved which requires a search warrant, there are plenty of examples of warrants issued without a real basis... the whole cyberpunk fiasco, for example. And there's really nothing you can do as recourse, once your stuff is taken, you can pretty much kiss it goodbye.
That was brilliant. Thanks.
Qt is available under the GPL for OS X. OS X is certainly not a free platform.
This would presumably only work locally though, right? I mean, if you send an email to me across the Internet (and I use a different email client), your status won't be updated. You have no way of knowing whether or not I opened the email because I am not sending anything back to you.
Yes, but without a hard drive, it's going to make installing OS X rather difficult, don't you think?
My girlfriend just sent me this picture of a funny looking cat.
The vast majority of software that is written (something around 80% based on number of lines of code written, though I don't have the reference for this figure readily at hand) is never released outside of the company. That is to say, it is for internal use.
Provided you aren't releasing trade secrets, your company may see significant benefit to releasing this software. You were going to write it anyway, by releasing it perhaps someone else can improve it or send you bug fixes for free.
So, you get paid because you are employed by your company. The company benefits with better quality software.
No great secret, but something people tend to forget when they think of software programmers.
While I agree with you that MS Office (and especially MS Word) are the industry standard, you may be aware that MS Office does not have great MS Office-compatibility. Yes, you read that correctly. Just changing a printer that your document is set to print with may break your carefully laid out paginations. This is much more likely to happen if you transfer your document to a different version of Office or especially from the Windows to the Mac version.
And of course, you cannot expect that many of your plugin objects will work on the Mac version of MS Office if you created the document in the Windows version, or vice versa.
Perhaps my definition of compatibility is a little strict, but it certainly seems reasonable to me to expect I'd be able to open a document created in MS Office on a different computer and it would look and print exactly the same. This simply is not the case.
I cannot speak for Openoffice. It may be no better.