By allowing Connector to be distributed without encumbrance in other Linux distros they can increase the popularity of Evolution in Windows oriented corporate settings. Increasing Evolution's popularity increases Novell's mindshare in corporate settings. With every copy of Evolution installed on a corporate machine that is one less copy of Outlook sold. With a reduced demand for Outlook Novell is probably hoping the demand for Office will drop as well. Once Office's demand drops it stands to reason that the demand for Windows server products will drop as well.
The goal of Novell, Sun, IBM, and others is to make alternatives to Microsoft viable in corporate settings. Some companies might want to replace Windows on their PCs with Linux or maybe buy a bunch of eMacs. If they're stuck with Windows and Outlook for e-mail and calendaring they might not be able to. If Novell gives that company and out from under Microsoft - via Ximian Connector - they'll be remembered for it when it comes time to replace an Exchange server. By backing open source projects to replace Microsoft they can take advantage of tons of man-hours invested into the projects and the inherent cross-platform capability of the software. Where before a company might have only had the prospect of upgrading to new Windows PCs there's increasing propects of being able yo buy any PC they want running any OS that fits their needs.
I think they've found a way with their high end base stations. The more expensive Airports have external antenna connectors, USB ports, and built-in modems.
There's very few other WiFi manufacturers chasing the dial-up crowd even though there's millions of them all over the place. For many the prospect of paying $30+ for internet access isn't too appealing when their $10 v.90 dial-up access suits them just fine. The modems other use is pretty sweet, the AP Extreme base stations can act as dial-in servers. You can dial into the base station and be on your network with all of your other systems.
All of the APs support USB printer sharing on the network which is typically a $100 device all by itself. There's also quite a few situations where external antenna jacks are a requirement for a WiFi base station. APs with external antenna jacks are rarely found in the $50 WiFi bargain bin.
Like their computers Apple's Airport base stations are more featureful products sold at a premium. Compared to cheapo base stations sold at Wal*Mart they aren't terribly good deals. Compared to other devices of the same functionality they're really competitive. I don't think they really need to do much to lock customers into their products, just offer the functionality that they want or need. It isn't so much about fighting price wars, just an unwillingness to cut out functionality to increase market share. Why compete with the Chinese clone maker cranking out millions of limited functionality base stations when they can keep selling more functional devices to the market that wants them?
You're not clear on whether or not you're counting state and federal rebates on your PV costs. In California we've got this program which provides serious cash for people interested in installing their own renewable energy (RE) system. If you don't live somewhere with such a rebate program you might try writing to your state representatives and ask them why.
Also, your brand new PV system will likely last at least 25 years, possibly much more. Such a system can also add quite a bit of value to your house. After 15 years your PV panels will be doing nothing but saving you money and raising the value of your house. On a 30 year scale the PV system will make you about as much as if you had invested it, possibly more if you can get tax credits and/or rebates. You're also likely to make some money on the PV system when you sell your house since it is a 'utility' upgrade more than a stylistic one.
It is really nice of TechWorld to let companies write their "articles" for them. This article is complete and utter tripe. I think this is quite a bit worse than the expose from Intego and their inane little "trojan horse". None of the outlined exploits went unpatched for any significant period of time, I downloaded the security updates that cleared up the problems just last week in fact. They're also not the sort of exploits that make Sasser and Blaster look like little nips.
Looking through Secunia's website - who I'd never heard of before reading this article HINT HINT - it appears as if Apple patched the very exploits the TechWorld article is harping on. This quote seems to have been blown way out of preportion by Kieren McCarthy:
This conclusion is based on the fact that Apple merely describes vulnerability 3 as an attempt to "improve the handling of long passwords". However, according to @stake, the vulnerability can in fact be exploited to compromise a vulnerable system.
He turned that quote into a slew of accusations about Apple being unresponsive over exploits and bugs. Man they're so unresponsive they provided me with a free security update not but a few days ago! Damn that Apple and their unresponsiveness! Maybe they'll release Quicktime 6.5.2 to unfix the problem they fixed of malformed Quicktime files crashing QT with the 6.5.1 update. I'm sure there are some real security exploits in OSX that are something to actually worry about. The ones outlined in this article...not so much.
I would have thought after MSBlaster ripped through the Windows world that people would have learned to keep Windows away from any and all open internet connections. While competent admins ought to keep their systems patched I find it difficult to understand why networks aren't properly firewalled. If you want to be cheap about it you can just have a single firewall at external connections. A little fancier set-up would be transparent packet filters to segment portions of the network from one another. Keeping everything off the network that wasn't intended to be there would nip many of these sorts of worms in the bud.
I think the bigger issue here is why systems like this, even relatively non-critical ones like the UK Coast Guard's mapping system, are running Windows. I would think that an organization like the CG would be able to get their vendors to develop applications for whatever OS they were running. Agencies set some criteria and contractors meet said criteria. If they were running say Linux I don't think it is far fetched to believe that some contractor would be able to develop the required mapping software for it. The CG might be running COTS software that runs only on Windows but I don't find that likely. I'd welcome an answer however.
Windows is known to be an extremely insecure system despite Microsoft's claims. While Service Pack 2 might magically fix all sorts of problems it is not available to end-users yet. Those magical fixes don't mean much to the here and now. It looks as if Windows' vulnerabilities are costing companies quite a bit of money and eating into their bottom line. I would have thought by now Windows would be on its way out the door in many organizations since their competition such as it is can do many of the same tasks either cheaper or more reliably.
I really don't think this rant nor your rant regarding the G5 were very well thought through. I consider it a low for you as there's times when you've got some fairly insightful rants about various topics. The squandered G5 rant was not one of them.
Your redux falls into the same logical traps as your original rant. You assume that a multi-platform API will cause developers to run out and buy Macs to do their development on. This simply does not follow. If the API is cross platform as OpenStep was there is little preventing a developer from firing up vi/emacs/pico/Notepad and grabbing the header files they need to write some code. I don't think you'd expect Java developers to go drop money on a Sun workstation when they can do it just as well at home on their $699 Windows or Linux PC. XCode isn't really enough to draw developers by the thousands to the Mac. You'd see a quick and dirty KDevelop or GBuilder fork to handle Cocoa development before you saw anyone buying a Mac to do it.
Both your rant and Redux fail to explain exactly what sort of functionality you'd expect out of the new Yellow Box. AppKit is nice but contains very little in the way of advanced functionality on its own. NSSound might be a decent class for playing simple audio files in an app but it doesn't hold a candle to the classes in CoreAudio. As such Apple would need to port CoreAudio to make Yellow Box a viable system to write audio editing/playback applications on. If they didn't do so the app's developer would need to write their own framework and bundle it with their app. They would need to put all that extra work into building their own frameworks when they could have just gone the Win32 route and been able to use DirectSound.
You point as WebObjects as if it were the best example of a Yellow Box application available. WO is a viable Yellow Box "application" because it is built mostly of its own utility frameworks. WebObjects is an entire set of frameworks on its own, it just uses Yellow Box for a base system to run on. It could have very well been written to sit on top of POSIX or Win32. WebObjects doesn't rely on system frameworks in the same way say iChat AV or OmniWeb do. Without Quicktime iChat wouldn't be such a fancy application. Without WebKit OmniWeb 4.5 and up wouldn't be doing a whole lot of anything.
You're also missing the small issue of why exactly developers would even bother with Cocoa/YB when they've got existing codebases with hundreds and thousands of man-hours invested into them. If Linux and MacOS aren't large enough blips on a developer's radars right now to garner any interest having Cocoa available isn't going to phase them. I don't know many developers that like tossing themselves into new APIs all of the time. All APIs and implementations have quirks, successful developers have learned to recognize and work around such quirks. Version 1.0 of SomeApp might have sucked but version 3.4 is really sweet because the developers are familiar with the target platform. Version 1.0 of SomeCocoaApp will likely suck and be extremely expensive to develop. It won't matter that the app has a 4% larger number of potential buyers if it sucks.
In all of your ranting you entirely ignored a fairly large group of developers. Not all developers write in C++ and ship their products in a box with brightly colored packaging. Macs have turned into excellent systems for internet/intranet development. Out of the box a Mac running OSX has a copy of Apache, Perl, PHP, and Java. With a few quick terminal commands it will have MySQL up and running. Portable Unix systems with warranties and hardware support that run all of the services and programs the servers in the NOC run; who the hell do you think bought the millions of laptops Apple sold last year? Macs can run all of the backend software the servers are running along with the front end apps like Dreamweaver and GoLive the design department is running.
Rhapsody was a much better idea in 1996 than it is in 2004. When Rhapsody was first floated Windows de
Why isn't there a Slashbox that lets me ignore all "reviews" written by Eugenia Loli-Queru. She's proved time and time again that she couldn't review herself out of a paper cup.
How well does the integrated graphics chip work?
Does the combo drive burn more than ISO images properly, you know those new fangled audio CDs and maybe a data backup disc? Does it read DVD-Rs properly and do DVD movies play without too much trouble?
If she is going to do a review of a piece of hardware it ought to be tested. If she can finagle a laptop out of someone she should be able to get a Firewire hard drive for testing purposes.
"Being a Centrino..." doesn't mean squat to me. What sort of work was she doing where the battery chugged along for 4.5 hours? Was that 4.5 hours of web browsing or 4.5 hours of Quake 3? How come the screen wasn't dim-able?
These are all questions that should have been answered, they certainly were hinted at. But no, show Eugenia some pretty pictures and she'll do a friggin backflip for you. This thing is hardly functional and she gave it seven points out of ten. In the configuration shipping to customers it won't go to sleep and the WiFi is shoddy and unreliable at best. How in the hell can something like that get seven points out of ten? Somebody got themselves a free toy laptop and gave the POS a good mark-up so the company will let her keep it. This article needs to be posted in the "How to Review Linux" story as a fine example of how not to write a review.
DBM has really hit a new low with this "article". It is almost painful to read through with the gaping holes in logic and diction that would make a SMS junkie teenager blush.
According to DBM's logic Apple might have a real nice developer platform on their hands if they'd only port the base API to other platforms. I find this assertion to be pretty ridiculous. OpenStep already lost this battle a decade ago. The problem NeXT ran into with OpenStep was developers were already entrenched with native and proprietary APIs on their platforms of choice. Few developers were willing to drop all of their current code in order to develop OpenStep applications.
There's also the small problem of Apple's OpenStep derived frameworks (AppKit & Foundation Kit) being a tiny (though important) fraction of the frameworks available in OSX. If only Cocoa were ported to other platforms developers would have to write their own frameworks for advanced functionality. Instead of being able to leverage Apple's DiscRecording framework a developer would have to write, maintain, and package their own in order for their app to be as cross platform as Cocoa. Then the argument would be Apple ought to port their more advanced frameworks in order to draw in more developers.
If Cocoa were to be ported to Windows and Linux tomorrow it wouldn't magically bring oodles of developer talent to the Mac. Think of how many KDE and GNOME apps run on Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin/PPC, and Windows with no platform specific patches despite their common API usage. Only the simplest of Cocoa apps would run with only a recompile (or fat compile) on multiple platforms.
DBM doesn't pay nearly enough attention to Java in his little rant as he should. With Java Apple's already got a nice cross platform development environment to work with. Apple ships two J2EE environments, WebObjects and JBoss, as well as J2SE on their client systems. MacOS X is also bundled with a Java/Obj-C bridge which DBM almost totally ignores. The Java bridge gives OSX a serious advantage as a development and deployment platform for Java applications. With the Java bridge a developer can write a single cross platform application model and then stick a native Objective-C/Cocoa based GUI on top of it. Java's huge cross platform development base with a native Aqua GUI.
There's a few languages such as Python, Perl, and Ruby that can be bridged to Objective-C and can access Cocoa. That is not to mention C++ code can easily access Objective-C classes and thus Cocoa just as well as anything else. I don't really see Objective-C to be much of a hurdle in the development of Mac applications.
What it really comes down to is developers who don't want to abandon the APIs they are used to. All porting Cocoa would do is let Linux and Windows users run Mac applications. If everyone could run Mac applications on non-Mac computers the Mac would become a commodity item and Apple would be little more than an iPod manufacturer that happened to write some software. If Macs ran Windows there'd be no difference between a Mac and an HP. If PCs ran MacOS they'd be no different from Macs. In either case Apple would no longer have a whole product to sell. Without a whole product to sell Apple would either just be yet another software company or yet another hardware company. There's hundreds of each of those. Apple makes money by selling a whole computer product.
As of MacOS 10.1 you've been able to call Objective-C class libraries from C++ code. It is also possible to call C++ class libraries from Objective-C code. Then of course it is possible to mix C++ and Objective-C code in the same source files. So...Cocoa is entirely accessible from C++ code.
Cocoa has been designed to work well with just about any OO language you throw at it. See the numerous bridges between OO languages and Cocoa.
While these iMacs might be POS terminals today, tomorrow they might be moved into an entirely different department with an entirely different task. A thin terminal can only go where there is a server set up to support it. Not only do they need a central server but a relatively beefy one. A network of fat clients can have their file and software management handled by a relatively inexpensive file and print server, even one of the other fat clients acting as a server. They don't need to burden their servers with their entire processing load.
The eMac uses about as much power (ie produces as much heat) as a similarly sized CRT monitor. So for the heat output of a nice size monitor you get a whole computer. Even if you've got a flat panel display it is going to be driven by a little space heater under the desk. While an LCD is definitely going to be smaller than an eMac the overall power savings aren't too impressive. If you want a system that won't heat up a room or take up a bunch of space get a Powerbook. My 12" PB uses as much power as a small light bulb and has a really crisp screen.
I was only using the move operation as an example. In MacOS the default action is move, Option/Alt is copy, and Option + Command is link. The four modifier kets, Control, Shift, Option, and Command all live on the corner of the keyboard which makes them relatively easy to access while you're working.
I didn't realize KDE's menu was a menu rather than a dialog, I use GNOME and Nautilus personally. I still don't think a menu is the right thing to do in that situation. If a new user sits down to the system they may not have any idea what to do when something pops up as they try to drag some files. They won't know the modifier keys obviously but it reasonable to assume that files will move logically when they're moved physically. A menu as such is also pretty easy to miss if you're in a hurry and depending on its modality can reall throw off your chi. If the menu pops up in the bottom left corner of the screen and you've already begun to throw your mouse back towards the right corner you might miss the menu on a busy screen or have to pause to find it again. If the menu is view modal it might hidden behind another application or window and you'll never be able to figure out why your files aren't copying or your file managing doesn't want to respond. KDE ought to stick with the modifier keys or disable the option menu by default (if it doesn't).
The key is picking a good set of defaults. You can always let users change the defaults later. A file manager that requires user input to perform simple actions is getting in the user's way. The basic file management on a system should be as transparent as possible. A user ought to be putting more thought into where files should go instead of being bothered with getting them there.
Having to stop and wait for dialogs interupts workflow. Making a user travel across the screen to answer a dialog offers them a chance to press the wrong button. If you really meant to link some files and you accidently hit the copy key in your mouse clicking fervor you could end up very upset, especially if the write operation takes place over a slow network connection or the system doesn't handle "Cancel" operations gracefully or even at all.
I'll use my example again. I've got a folder where I store my pending projects. I make two subfolders for different project priorities so I can more easily find them later to work on them. In a browser-like file manager I have to either make the icons or names as small as possible so I don't have to drag-and-scroll or I need to take up a bunch of screen real estate with a second window with all of its browser widgets. So I go through my projects folder and carefully select my high priority projects so I can drag them all at once so I'm only bothered once by the action confirmation dialog. Then I open my lower priority folder and drag the rest of the files into it. I think it can be done better.
Now I do the same task working spacially. I've got my new folders with their sparse windows both open on my desktop. I go through my project folder hutning for my high priority projects. If I find several high priority projects grouped together I can drag them while my cursor is close to them and not have to worry about them later. Since I don't want to waste disk space I'm just going to move the files. To move them I just have to hold down a modifier key on my keyboard instead of answer a dialog. So I hold down my Alt key and drag those grouped high priority projects. When the window redraws a couple low priority projects are grouped together. I drag those holding down the Alt key. Working like that I'll be through the task in less time than I would be working with browser-like windows. I can also work dynamically since I don't have to travel all over hell and creation with my cursor to answer a dialog asking me what I want to do. Even if I were using multiple browser windows instead of sparse ones I'd still go faster not having a stupid dialog interupting me.
Dialogs should only come up when they are requested or when there is some dire warning I absolutely must have. Any other time I want my computer to just sit and listen and do what I tell it to. They should not be tied to every other action I'm going to perform. If I decide I want to enable user event sounds so I get an audio cue when something happens I'm going to have a beep or plonk every time I move a file. If the audio file isn't cached in memory and has to load from disk which means I have to wait on the disk for the event loop to complete. Sorry but no, being forced to deal with dialogs would cause me to throw a very expensive piece of equipment off the roof of a three story building.
The Objective-C Pocket Reference from ORA is an awesome companion to any and all Cocoa and Objective-C books. It gives a good overview of the language as long as you've got some previous OO programming knowlege. One of its best features is its platform agnosticism. The compiled used with all of the examples is gcc so its quirks and foibles are explained and noted where applicable. You'd also be hard pressed to find one of the examples in the book that didn't run equally well on the GNU and Darwin runtimes. For a good primer on the language it is a really nice handbook and could get a moderately experienced programmer up to speed with Objective-C in an afternoon.
You're not thinking abstractly enough. To make a Xerox copy you have to use a tool to accomplish that task. It is not the sort of operation you can do with your hands. The copy command being in your "toolbox" (the menu) makes sense because it is a non-natural action you're performing. Moving the file is a natural action and ought to happen in a way you'd predict it would spacially. Making an exact duplicate of something should also happen as it might spacially, by using some sort of tool to accomplish the task.
Metaphors should not be pushed too far but people have years upon years of experience using physical items and working in a spacial manner. A computer should do as much to leverage a user's previously learned knowlege as much as possible. It wasn't until computers could display information that was human readable did they become popular and useful to normal people. Before computers could be useful to most people they had to leverage the written and spoken language their users were already accustomed to and using regularly. When computers began to represent data in a spacial manner they started to leverage a user's lifetime of existing in space and using physical objects.
A GUI that works counter-intuitively to a user's learned actions and expectations slows them down and is inefficienct. A dialog box that pops up causes a user to perform a mental context switch. They have to go from the task at hand (organizing files) to deciding if they ought to link, copy, or move files after they've dragged them. If they move several files individually that is several context switches that need to be performed even if the action is identical.
This is a bad interface design. It requires the user to select multiple files at once to move and select them all at once so they don't have to waste time clicking a stupid dialog. With a default action the user can learn that dragging files always moves them while dragging with a modifier key held down will copy them. A finger can be put on the modifier key with a single action and from there pressing the key to copy instead of move becomes trivial. Performing the same copy action on several files is as simple as keeping one's finger down on the modifier key with no wasted motion finding a confirmation button in a dialog box.
Or...dragging files between folders ought to move it by default. When you've got a paper in one folder on your desk and pick it up and slip it into another folder does it duplicate the paper at the quantum level in the new folder? No. If you're using a spacial desktop metaphor on a computer it should behave in a spacial manner.
A GUI should facilitate work getting done and then get the hell out of the way. Interupting the user's concentration and workflow by popping up a dialog asking how to move files is absurd. Changing the move behavior based on whether the destination is on the same drive is equally absurd. An interface needs to be consistant and forgettable. A user should never have to fight with the interface to get their work done. The specific task at hand - be it typing an essay, editing a photograph, or composing a musical score - should be all the user has to concern themself with. Computers are supposed to do the hard work while we get the important stuff done, not the other way around.
Why should configuring a server be exceedingly difficult and complex? Computers are supposed to make jobs easier to do, not harder. Configuring a server by tweaking a bunch of text configuration files might be l33t among your schoolyard friends, among people that have work to do it can be a pain.
On a Linux system you're not likely to find any two services with the same configuration syntax or language. Every time an admin has to learn a new configuration syntax the liklihood of them screwing something up increases. If a management tool works well there's little reason not to use it. If it reduces administration of the system to dragging icons and clicking buttons it shouldn't matter to anyone. An admin still has to know what values are required for the system to work right and how to effectively manage the system and network. Management tools whatever they may be let admins focus on their real job, system maintenance, rather than on the gritty details of learning the intricacies of Sendmail's configuration files.
Download file with a name like Yeah-Usher.mp3.sit with your favorite downloader.
Decompress said StuffIt file. If you use Safari and have "Open "safe" files after download" or use Camino and have "Automatically open downloaded files" checked you can skip this step
Open up the file in attempt to view/listen to it
Suffer ill effects of worm
I'm not too worried even if a Security Update isn't released to fix the problem. I suppose a worm of this sort will affect the sort of people that open attachments from strangers and type in their administrators passwords despite warnings against such actions. For them there isn't much you can do except take their computer away.
I travel around quite a bit with my Powerbook and end up using quite a few different networks. Instead of using the default Automatic network setup I've got several locations configured. When I'm on my wireless network at home I go up to the Apple menu, down to Locations, then click Home Wireless. All my home networks particular settings become active and voila I'm on my network. When I'm out and need to use my dial-up connection I switch to Roaming Dialup. There's no need for me to even bring up my network settings or switch my default connection method as I would need to do in Windows XP in order for the system to not complain. It lets me switch seemlessly between multiple networks and power off devices I'm not using (to conserve a little extra battery power). For me that is a huge productivity boost.
Keychain is a really nice little technology that was added to MacOS in version 9. It is a system-wide service that stores various passwords in an encrypted file in my home directory. Keychain aware applications will store a particular password on my keychain. I've got several e-mail accounts and all of their passwords are stored by Mail in my keychain. I can have several keychains located just about anywhere that are fairly secure and save me from having to type in passwords all day as long as I'm logged into my system. I can log into several services in several different applications and keep my passwords protected and backed up in a single location. It is even possible to store a keychain file on a removable USB drive to keep your really important account information secure.
I keep my music and my pictures organized with iTunes and iPhoto. While iView Pro is quite a bit more robust and functional than iPhoto it costs a bit more than I want to spend in order to organize photographs and various other pictures. When I add photos it is really simple to add comments and keywords to the database so searching for them later is easy. Being able to drag a photo into another app directly from iPhoto or find a particular picture based on a comment I left about it is a really nice feature. With iTunes I have similar capabilities with my music. I can use my playlists to play songs according to particular rules I set up or songs I picked individually. I don't have to keep meticulous track of my music files in order to find a particular band or album at any given point. A double click on "Beta Band" in the album browser and I can hide the application while I do something else because the music is playing.
While Windows or Linux might have software to do similar things as all these they're all tasks I can accomplish out of the box with OSX that save me a lot of time. The speed at which I type up a letter in OSX isn't going to be much different from me typing the same letter in Windows. What I will get done quicker is switching to iPhoto to drag a picture of the sunset I took onto my friend's name in iChat because I saw him pop online a minute before and then switching to Safari to drag a long URL into my letter so I don't make a typo and screw the hyperlink up. I find MacOS enables me to do more things simultaneously than Windows does despite both being technically multitasking systems. The sundry tasks that divert me from my main task (writing a letter) are what really eat away at my time. Saving time switching between these tasks and completing them are what give me productivity boosts and stress reductions.
The issue isn't being anti-science, the issue is being anti-informed. My point is and was that we've been performing genetic modification on all sorts of things for years.
A huge number of sustenance crops grown throughout the world are the product of thousands of years of human directed breeding. Plant breeding has been happening before people had even a modest understanding of the underlying genetics. Many wheat cultivars contain a chromosome arm from rye which provides protection from many types of diseases, this has been done without directly changing the wheat's genetic structure. The bananas most of us buy in the store are a result of a hybrid created from Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana, both species of the Musa genus.
The main difference between GM crops from the likes of Monsanto and the more traditional crops made from controlled pollenation is the Monsanto species have more predictable outcomes. Even in modern labs controlled pollenation is a hit or miss proposition with regards to specific traits in the final products.
Monsanto might be an evil corporation, I'm not necessarily a fan of their business practices. That doesn't mean GM food is bad or essentially different from the crops we grow and eat every day.
We've been breeding crops for thousands of years. The only difference between traditional breeding and direct genetic modification is the level of control we have over the food's final characteristics. You mention organic food as if GM foods are composed entirely of non-organic compounds. Farmers can still grow GM crops in the "organic" fashion which means less pesticides and herbicides in rivers and lakes. GM foods are especially useful to "organic" farmers because they can be bred with resistance to various fungi and pests that would normally require tons upon tons of pesticides and herbicides.
Microsoft's longterm plan is to have their software on everyone's computer. While forcing vendors to stick Windows on new PCs has worked for a while it won't necessarily work forever. Windows is being eclipsed by Linux in a variety of areas anymore. While Linux isn't about to replace Windows the world over tomorrow it is making headway in a number of large organizations.
Enter.NET. No matter what the underlying operating system Microsoft could still get their software on everyone's computer. The.NET environment is designed to be highly portable and as such can be run on Linux, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Linux, MacOS X, Windows, even embedded OSes. Using.NET frameworks and compiling software to p-code means that software will run on any computer with a.NET runtime environment installed on it. I'm pretty sure Microsoft would want that to be every computer. I think that is the entire reason Microsoft's been pushing.NET so much lately, Windows is going to be turned into a commodity product. Instead of pushing Windows Microsoft will be pushing its.NET environment instead. Munich, the DoD, or all of China could switch to Linux and Microsoft could still make money hand over fist selling those organizations.NET runtimes.
"Run Linux and still have all of your old Windows.NET programs available!"
In the early days of the PC industry Microsoft managed to commoditize the PC. Since MS-DOS would run on any PC it didn't matter what hardware vendor your organization chose. No matter if you bought from IBM, Compaq, or Packard-Bell, DOS and you entire software library would still run. I think it stands to reason that Microsoft wants to do the same thing with the OS market. An OS takes a huge amount of work to produce and maintain. Until the final support contracts run out money has to be poured into the development of the OS to keep it patched and functional and working with the software your big customers need. I could see Microsoft wanting out of that mainstream market in a few years when the playing field is much more competitive with Linux, MacOS, and even an as yet unknown OS vying for supremacy in the market. Instead of slugging it out with real competition Windows could just just another system.NET runs on.
ergo, it doesn't seem unlikely.NET will be released on any and every platform with enough users to make money off of.
AFAIK Panther doesn't have single file encryption like OS9 did. You can however make an encrypted disk image with Disk Utility and stick sensitive files inside of that. File Vault is nice and all but it encrypts your entire home directory. I much prefer the encrypted directories on Windows 2000/XP. Simulating that feature on Panther isn't too difficult.
Make an encrypted disk image of whatever size you'd like and keep it in your home directory. Set the permissions to 700. Mount the image and make an alias to it. From here you've two two options with different levels of security. The first is to make the disk image a login item. If you do this whenever you log in the image will be mounted and you can put files on it until you're blue in the face or it runs out of space. When you mount it you'll be prompted for your password, you can store the password in the keychain so it doesn't prompt you but that isn't very secure. The second option is to not make the disk image a start up item. Whenever you go to save something you the alias you created in your home directory and the image isn't mounted it will mount and prompt you for your password. Voila encrypted directory. For further coolness replace your Documents folder with alias to the image. encrypted Documents folder.
The aspect of these stories I find most interesting is the sheer number of people that have Photoshop and are using it to alter these photographs. Few if any of these folks strike me as the graphic design type. It is strange then that they would shell out $649 for an app they seemingly only use to retouch NASA photographs.
Slashdot Mirror
By allowing Connector to be distributed without encumbrance in other Linux distros they can increase the popularity of Evolution in Windows oriented corporate settings. Increasing Evolution's popularity increases Novell's mindshare in corporate settings. With every copy of Evolution installed on a corporate machine that is one less copy of Outlook sold. With a reduced demand for Outlook Novell is probably hoping the demand for Office will drop as well. Once Office's demand drops it stands to reason that the demand for Windows server products will drop as well.
The goal of Novell, Sun, IBM, and others is to make alternatives to Microsoft viable in corporate settings. Some companies might want to replace Windows on their PCs with Linux or maybe buy a bunch of eMacs. If they're stuck with Windows and Outlook for e-mail and calendaring they might not be able to. If Novell gives that company and out from under Microsoft - via Ximian Connector - they'll be remembered for it when it comes time to replace an Exchange server. By backing open source projects to replace Microsoft they can take advantage of tons of man-hours invested into the projects and the inherent cross-platform capability of the software. Where before a company might have only had the prospect of upgrading to new Windows PCs there's increasing propects of being able yo buy any PC they want running any OS that fits their needs.
I think they've found a way with their high end base stations. The more expensive Airports have external antenna connectors, USB ports, and built-in modems.
There's very few other WiFi manufacturers chasing the dial-up crowd even though there's millions of them all over the place. For many the prospect of paying $30+ for internet access isn't too appealing when their $10 v.90 dial-up access suits them just fine. The modems other use is pretty sweet, the AP Extreme base stations can act as dial-in servers. You can dial into the base station and be on your network with all of your other systems.
All of the APs support USB printer sharing on the network which is typically a $100 device all by itself. There's also quite a few situations where external antenna jacks are a requirement for a WiFi base station. APs with external antenna jacks are rarely found in the $50 WiFi bargain bin.
Like their computers Apple's Airport base stations are more featureful products sold at a premium. Compared to cheapo base stations sold at Wal*Mart they aren't terribly good deals. Compared to other devices of the same functionality they're really competitive. I don't think they really need to do much to lock customers into their products, just offer the functionality that they want or need. It isn't so much about fighting price wars, just an unwillingness to cut out functionality to increase market share. Why compete with the Chinese clone maker cranking out millions of limited functionality base stations when they can keep selling more functional devices to the market that wants them?
You're not clear on whether or not you're counting state and federal rebates on your PV costs. In California we've got this program which provides serious cash for people interested in installing their own renewable energy (RE) system. If you don't live somewhere with such a rebate program you might try writing to your state representatives and ask them why.
Also, your brand new PV system will likely last at least 25 years, possibly much more. Such a system can also add quite a bit of value to your house. After 15 years your PV panels will be doing nothing but saving you money and raising the value of your house. On a 30 year scale the PV system will make you about as much as if you had invested it, possibly more if you can get tax credits and/or rebates. You're also likely to make some money on the PV system when you sell your house since it is a 'utility' upgrade more than a stylistic one.
Looking through Secunia's website - who I'd never heard of before reading this article HINT HINT - it appears as if Apple patched the very exploits the TechWorld article is harping on. This quote seems to have been blown way out of preportion by Kieren McCarthy:
He turned that quote into a slew of accusations about Apple being unresponsive over exploits and bugs. Man they're so unresponsive they provided me with a free security update not but a few days ago! Damn that Apple and their unresponsiveness! Maybe they'll release Quicktime 6.5.2 to unfix the problem they fixed of malformed Quicktime files crashing QT with the 6.5.1 update. I'm sure there are some real security exploits in OSX that are something to actually worry about. The ones outlined in this article...not so much.
I would have thought after MSBlaster ripped through the Windows world that people would have learned to keep Windows away from any and all open internet connections. While competent admins ought to keep their systems patched I find it difficult to understand why networks aren't properly firewalled. If you want to be cheap about it you can just have a single firewall at external connections. A little fancier set-up would be transparent packet filters to segment portions of the network from one another. Keeping everything off the network that wasn't intended to be there would nip many of these sorts of worms in the bud.
I think the bigger issue here is why systems like this, even relatively non-critical ones like the UK Coast Guard's mapping system, are running Windows. I would think that an organization like the CG would be able to get their vendors to develop applications for whatever OS they were running. Agencies set some criteria and contractors meet said criteria. If they were running say Linux I don't think it is far fetched to believe that some contractor would be able to develop the required mapping software for it. The CG might be running COTS software that runs only on Windows but I don't find that likely. I'd welcome an answer however.
Windows is known to be an extremely insecure system despite Microsoft's claims. While Service Pack 2 might magically fix all sorts of problems it is not available to end-users yet. Those magical fixes don't mean much to the here and now. It looks as if Windows' vulnerabilities are costing companies quite a bit of money and eating into their bottom line. I would have thought by now Windows would be on its way out the door in many organizations since their competition such as it is can do many of the same tasks either cheaper or more reliably.
I really don't think this rant nor your rant regarding the G5 were very well thought through. I consider it a low for you as there's times when you've got some fairly insightful rants about various topics. The squandered G5 rant was not one of them.
Your redux falls into the same logical traps as your original rant. You assume that a multi-platform API will cause developers to run out and buy Macs to do their development on. This simply does not follow. If the API is cross platform as OpenStep was there is little preventing a developer from firing up vi/emacs/pico/Notepad and grabbing the header files they need to write some code. I don't think you'd expect Java developers to go drop money on a Sun workstation when they can do it just as well at home on their $699 Windows or Linux PC. XCode isn't really enough to draw developers by the thousands to the Mac. You'd see a quick and dirty KDevelop or GBuilder fork to handle Cocoa development before you saw anyone buying a Mac to do it.
Both your rant and Redux fail to explain exactly what sort of functionality you'd expect out of the new Yellow Box. AppKit is nice but contains very little in the way of advanced functionality on its own. NSSound might be a decent class for playing simple audio files in an app but it doesn't hold a candle to the classes in CoreAudio. As such Apple would need to port CoreAudio to make Yellow Box a viable system to write audio editing/playback applications on. If they didn't do so the app's developer would need to write their own framework and bundle it with their app. They would need to put all that extra work into building their own frameworks when they could have just gone the Win32 route and been able to use DirectSound.
You point as WebObjects as if it were the best example of a Yellow Box application available. WO is a viable Yellow Box "application" because it is built mostly of its own utility frameworks. WebObjects is an entire set of frameworks on its own, it just uses Yellow Box for a base system to run on. It could have very well been written to sit on top of POSIX or Win32. WebObjects doesn't rely on system frameworks in the same way say iChat AV or OmniWeb do. Without Quicktime iChat wouldn't be such a fancy application. Without WebKit OmniWeb 4.5 and up wouldn't be doing a whole lot of anything.
You're also missing the small issue of why exactly developers would even bother with Cocoa/YB when they've got existing codebases with hundreds and thousands of man-hours invested into them. If Linux and MacOS aren't large enough blips on a developer's radars right now to garner any interest having Cocoa available isn't going to phase them. I don't know many developers that like tossing themselves into new APIs all of the time. All APIs and implementations have quirks, successful developers have learned to recognize and work around such quirks. Version 1.0 of SomeApp might have sucked but version 3.4 is really sweet because the developers are familiar with the target platform. Version 1.0 of SomeCocoaApp will likely suck and be extremely expensive to develop. It won't matter that the app has a 4% larger number of potential buyers if it sucks.
In all of your ranting you entirely ignored a fairly large group of developers. Not all developers write in C++ and ship their products in a box with brightly colored packaging. Macs have turned into excellent systems for internet/intranet development. Out of the box a Mac running OSX has a copy of Apache, Perl, PHP, and Java. With a few quick terminal commands it will have MySQL up and running. Portable Unix systems with warranties and hardware support that run all of the services and programs the servers in the NOC run; who the hell do you think bought the millions of laptops Apple sold last year? Macs can run all of the backend software the servers are running along with the front end apps like Dreamweaver and GoLive the design department is running.
Rhapsody was a much better idea in 1996 than it is in 2004. When Rhapsody was first floated Windows de
These are all questions that should have been answered, they certainly were hinted at. But no, show Eugenia some pretty pictures and she'll do a friggin backflip for you. This thing is hardly functional and she gave it seven points out of ten. In the configuration shipping to customers it won't go to sleep and the WiFi is shoddy and unreliable at best. How in the hell can something like that get seven points out of ten? Somebody got themselves a free toy laptop and gave the POS a good mark-up so the company will let her keep it. This article needs to be posted in the "How to Review Linux" story as a fine example of how not to write a review.
DragonflyBSD.
DBM has really hit a new low with this "article". It is almost painful to read through with the gaping holes in logic and diction that would make a SMS junkie teenager blush.
According to DBM's logic Apple might have a real nice developer platform on their hands if they'd only port the base API to other platforms. I find this assertion to be pretty ridiculous. OpenStep already lost this battle a decade ago. The problem NeXT ran into with OpenStep was developers were already entrenched with native and proprietary APIs on their platforms of choice. Few developers were willing to drop all of their current code in order to develop OpenStep applications.
There's also the small problem of Apple's OpenStep derived frameworks (AppKit & Foundation Kit) being a tiny (though important) fraction of the frameworks available in OSX. If only Cocoa were ported to other platforms developers would have to write their own frameworks for advanced functionality. Instead of being able to leverage Apple's DiscRecording framework a developer would have to write, maintain, and package their own in order for their app to be as cross platform as Cocoa. Then the argument would be Apple ought to port their more advanced frameworks in order to draw in more developers.
If Cocoa were to be ported to Windows and Linux tomorrow it wouldn't magically bring oodles of developer talent to the Mac. Think of how many KDE and GNOME apps run on Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin/PPC, and Windows with no platform specific patches despite their common API usage. Only the simplest of Cocoa apps would run with only a recompile (or fat compile) on multiple platforms.
DBM doesn't pay nearly enough attention to Java in his little rant as he should. With Java Apple's already got a nice cross platform development environment to work with. Apple ships two J2EE environments, WebObjects and JBoss, as well as J2SE on their client systems. MacOS X is also bundled with a Java/Obj-C bridge which DBM almost totally ignores. The Java bridge gives OSX a serious advantage as a development and deployment platform for Java applications. With the Java bridge a developer can write a single cross platform application model and then stick a native Objective-C/Cocoa based GUI on top of it. Java's huge cross platform development base with a native Aqua GUI.
There's a few languages such as Python, Perl, and Ruby that can be bridged to Objective-C and can access Cocoa. That is not to mention C++ code can easily access Objective-C classes and thus Cocoa just as well as anything else. I don't really see Objective-C to be much of a hurdle in the development of Mac applications.
What it really comes down to is developers who don't want to abandon the APIs they are used to. All porting Cocoa would do is let Linux and Windows users run Mac applications. If everyone could run Mac applications on non-Mac computers the Mac would become a commodity item and Apple would be little more than an iPod manufacturer that happened to write some software. If Macs ran Windows there'd be no difference between a Mac and an HP. If PCs ran MacOS they'd be no different from Macs. In either case Apple would no longer have a whole product to sell. Without a whole product to sell Apple would either just be yet another software company or yet another hardware company. There's hundreds of each of those. Apple makes money by selling a whole computer product.
As of MacOS 10.1 you've been able to call Objective-C class libraries from C++ code. It is also possible to call C++ class libraries from Objective-C code. Then of course it is possible to mix C++ and Objective-C code in the same source files. So...Cocoa is entirely accessible from C++ code.
Cocoa has been designed to work well with just about any OO language you throw at it. See the numerous bridges between OO languages and Cocoa.
While these iMacs might be POS terminals today, tomorrow they might be moved into an entirely different department with an entirely different task. A thin terminal can only go where there is a server set up to support it. Not only do they need a central server but a relatively beefy one. A network of fat clients can have their file and software management handled by a relatively inexpensive file and print server, even one of the other fat clients acting as a server. They don't need to burden their servers with their entire processing load.
The eMac uses about as much power (ie produces as much heat) as a similarly sized CRT monitor. So for the heat output of a nice size monitor you get a whole computer. Even if you've got a flat panel display it is going to be driven by a little space heater under the desk. While an LCD is definitely going to be smaller than an eMac the overall power savings aren't too impressive. If you want a system that won't heat up a room or take up a bunch of space get a Powerbook. My 12" PB uses as much power as a small light bulb and has a really crisp screen.
I was only using the move operation as an example. In MacOS the default action is move, Option/Alt is copy, and Option + Command is link. The four modifier kets, Control, Shift, Option, and Command all live on the corner of the keyboard which makes them relatively easy to access while you're working.
I didn't realize KDE's menu was a menu rather than a dialog, I use GNOME and Nautilus personally. I still don't think a menu is the right thing to do in that situation. If a new user sits down to the system they may not have any idea what to do when something pops up as they try to drag some files. They won't know the modifier keys obviously but it reasonable to assume that files will move logically when they're moved physically. A menu as such is also pretty easy to miss if you're in a hurry and depending on its modality can reall throw off your chi. If the menu pops up in the bottom left corner of the screen and you've already begun to throw your mouse back towards the right corner you might miss the menu on a busy screen or have to pause to find it again. If the menu is view modal it might hidden behind another application or window and you'll never be able to figure out why your files aren't copying or your file managing doesn't want to respond. KDE ought to stick with the modifier keys or disable the option menu by default (if it doesn't).
The key is picking a good set of defaults. You can always let users change the defaults later. A file manager that requires user input to perform simple actions is getting in the user's way. The basic file management on a system should be as transparent as possible. A user ought to be putting more thought into where files should go instead of being bothered with getting them there.
Having to stop and wait for dialogs interupts workflow. Making a user travel across the screen to answer a dialog offers them a chance to press the wrong button. If you really meant to link some files and you accidently hit the copy key in your mouse clicking fervor you could end up very upset, especially if the write operation takes place over a slow network connection or the system doesn't handle "Cancel" operations gracefully or even at all.
I'll use my example again. I've got a folder where I store my pending projects. I make two subfolders for different project priorities so I can more easily find them later to work on them. In a browser-like file manager I have to either make the icons or names as small as possible so I don't have to drag-and-scroll or I need to take up a bunch of screen real estate with a second window with all of its browser widgets. So I go through my projects folder and carefully select my high priority projects so I can drag them all at once so I'm only bothered once by the action confirmation dialog. Then I open my lower priority folder and drag the rest of the files into it. I think it can be done better.
Now I do the same task working spacially. I've got my new folders with their sparse windows both open on my desktop. I go through my project folder hutning for my high priority projects. If I find several high priority projects grouped together I can drag them while my cursor is close to them and not have to worry about them later. Since I don't want to waste disk space I'm just going to move the files. To move them I just have to hold down a modifier key on my keyboard instead of answer a dialog. So I hold down my Alt key and drag those grouped high priority projects. When the window redraws a couple low priority projects are grouped together. I drag those holding down the Alt key. Working like that I'll be through the task in less time than I would be working with browser-like windows. I can also work dynamically since I don't have to travel all over hell and creation with my cursor to answer a dialog asking me what I want to do. Even if I were using multiple browser windows instead of sparse ones I'd still go faster not having a stupid dialog interupting me.
Dialogs should only come up when they are requested or when there is some dire warning I absolutely must have. Any other time I want my computer to just sit and listen and do what I tell it to. They should not be tied to every other action I'm going to perform. If I decide I want to enable user event sounds so I get an audio cue when something happens I'm going to have a beep or plonk every time I move a file. If the audio file isn't cached in memory and has to load from disk which means I have to wait on the disk for the event loop to complete. Sorry but no, being forced to deal with dialogs would cause me to throw a very expensive piece of equipment off the roof of a three story building.
The Objective-C Pocket Reference from ORA is an awesome companion to any and all Cocoa and Objective-C books. It gives a good overview of the language as long as you've got some previous OO programming knowlege. One of its best features is its platform agnosticism. The compiled used with all of the examples is gcc so its quirks and foibles are explained and noted where applicable. You'd also be hard pressed to find one of the examples in the book that didn't run equally well on the GNU and Darwin runtimes. For a good primer on the language it is a really nice handbook and could get a moderately experienced programmer up to speed with Objective-C in an afternoon.
You're not thinking abstractly enough. To make a Xerox copy you have to use a tool to accomplish that task. It is not the sort of operation you can do with your hands. The copy command being in your "toolbox" (the menu) makes sense because it is a non-natural action you're performing. Moving the file is a natural action and ought to happen in a way you'd predict it would spacially. Making an exact duplicate of something should also happen as it might spacially, by using some sort of tool to accomplish the task.
Metaphors should not be pushed too far but people have years upon years of experience using physical items and working in a spacial manner. A computer should do as much to leverage a user's previously learned knowlege as much as possible. It wasn't until computers could display information that was human readable did they become popular and useful to normal people. Before computers could be useful to most people they had to leverage the written and spoken language their users were already accustomed to and using regularly. When computers began to represent data in a spacial manner they started to leverage a user's lifetime of existing in space and using physical objects.
A GUI that works counter-intuitively to a user's learned actions and expectations slows them down and is inefficienct. A dialog box that pops up causes a user to perform a mental context switch. They have to go from the task at hand (organizing files) to deciding if they ought to link, copy, or move files after they've dragged them. If they move several files individually that is several context switches that need to be performed even if the action is identical.
This is a bad interface design. It requires the user to select multiple files at once to move and select them all at once so they don't have to waste time clicking a stupid dialog. With a default action the user can learn that dragging files always moves them while dragging with a modifier key held down will copy them. A finger can be put on the modifier key with a single action and from there pressing the key to copy instead of move becomes trivial. Performing the same copy action on several files is as simple as keeping one's finger down on the modifier key with no wasted motion finding a confirmation button in a dialog box.
Or...dragging files between folders ought to move it by default. When you've got a paper in one folder on your desk and pick it up and slip it into another folder does it duplicate the paper at the quantum level in the new folder? No. If you're using a spacial desktop metaphor on a computer it should behave in a spacial manner.
A GUI should facilitate work getting done and then get the hell out of the way. Interupting the user's concentration and workflow by popping up a dialog asking how to move files is absurd. Changing the move behavior based on whether the destination is on the same drive is equally absurd. An interface needs to be consistant and forgettable. A user should never have to fight with the interface to get their work done. The specific task at hand - be it typing an essay, editing a photograph, or composing a musical score - should be all the user has to concern themself with. Computers are supposed to do the hard work while we get the important stuff done, not the other way around.
Why should configuring a server be exceedingly difficult and complex? Computers are supposed to make jobs easier to do, not harder. Configuring a server by tweaking a bunch of text configuration files might be l33t among your schoolyard friends, among people that have work to do it can be a pain.
On a Linux system you're not likely to find any two services with the same configuration syntax or language. Every time an admin has to learn a new configuration syntax the liklihood of them screwing something up increases. If a management tool works well there's little reason not to use it. If it reduces administration of the system to dragging icons and clicking buttons it shouldn't matter to anyone. An admin still has to know what values are required for the system to work right and how to effectively manage the system and network. Management tools whatever they may be let admins focus on their real job, system maintenance, rather than on the gritty details of learning the intricacies of Sendmail's configuration files.
- Download file with a name like Yeah-Usher.mp3.sit with your favorite downloader.
- Decompress said StuffIt file. If you use Safari and have "Open "safe" files after download" or use Camino and have "Automatically open downloaded files" checked you can skip this step
- Open up the file in attempt to view/listen to it
- Suffer ill effects of worm
I'm not too worried even if a Security Update isn't released to fix the problem. I suppose a worm of this sort will affect the sort of people that open attachments from strangers and type in their administrators passwords despite warnings against such actions. For them there isn't much you can do except take their computer away.I travel around quite a bit with my Powerbook and end up using quite a few different networks. Instead of using the default Automatic network setup I've got several locations configured. When I'm on my wireless network at home I go up to the Apple menu, down to Locations, then click Home Wireless. All my home networks particular settings become active and voila I'm on my network. When I'm out and need to use my dial-up connection I switch to Roaming Dialup. There's no need for me to even bring up my network settings or switch my default connection method as I would need to do in Windows XP in order for the system to not complain. It lets me switch seemlessly between multiple networks and power off devices I'm not using (to conserve a little extra battery power). For me that is a huge productivity boost.
Keychain is a really nice little technology that was added to MacOS in version 9. It is a system-wide service that stores various passwords in an encrypted file in my home directory. Keychain aware applications will store a particular password on my keychain. I've got several e-mail accounts and all of their passwords are stored by Mail in my keychain. I can have several keychains located just about anywhere that are fairly secure and save me from having to type in passwords all day as long as I'm logged into my system. I can log into several services in several different applications and keep my passwords protected and backed up in a single location. It is even possible to store a keychain file on a removable USB drive to keep your really important account information secure.
I keep my music and my pictures organized with iTunes and iPhoto. While iView Pro is quite a bit more robust and functional than iPhoto it costs a bit more than I want to spend in order to organize photographs and various other pictures. When I add photos it is really simple to add comments and keywords to the database so searching for them later is easy. Being able to drag a photo into another app directly from iPhoto or find a particular picture based on a comment I left about it is a really nice feature. With iTunes I have similar capabilities with my music. I can use my playlists to play songs according to particular rules I set up or songs I picked individually. I don't have to keep meticulous track of my music files in order to find a particular band or album at any given point. A double click on "Beta Band" in the album browser and I can hide the application while I do something else because the music is playing.
While Windows or Linux might have software to do similar things as all these they're all tasks I can accomplish out of the box with OSX that save me a lot of time. The speed at which I type up a letter in OSX isn't going to be much different from me typing the same letter in Windows. What I will get done quicker is switching to iPhoto to drag a picture of the sunset I took onto my friend's name in iChat because I saw him pop online a minute before and then switching to Safari to drag a long URL into my letter so I don't make a typo and screw the hyperlink up. I find MacOS enables me to do more things simultaneously than Windows does despite both being technically multitasking systems. The sundry tasks that divert me from my main task (writing a letter) are what really eat away at my time. Saving time switching between these tasks and completing them are what give me productivity boosts and stress reductions.
The issue isn't being anti-science, the issue is being anti-informed. My point is and was that we've been performing genetic modification on all sorts of things for years.
A huge number of sustenance crops grown throughout the world are the product of thousands of years of human directed breeding. Plant breeding has been happening before people had even a modest understanding of the underlying genetics. Many wheat cultivars contain a chromosome arm from rye which provides protection from many types of diseases, this has been done without directly changing the wheat's genetic structure. The bananas most of us buy in the store are a result of a hybrid created from Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana, both species of the Musa genus.
The main difference between GM crops from the likes of Monsanto and the more traditional crops made from controlled pollenation is the Monsanto species have more predictable outcomes. Even in modern labs controlled pollenation is a hit or miss proposition with regards to specific traits in the final products.
Monsanto might be an evil corporation, I'm not necessarily a fan of their business practices. That doesn't mean GM food is bad or essentially different from the crops we grow and eat every day.
We've been breeding crops for thousands of years. The only difference between traditional breeding and direct genetic modification is the level of control we have over the food's final characteristics. You mention organic food as if GM foods are composed entirely of non-organic compounds. Farmers can still grow GM crops in the "organic" fashion which means less pesticides and herbicides in rivers and lakes. GM foods are especially useful to "organic" farmers because they can be bred with resistance to various fungi and pests that would normally require tons upon tons of pesticides and herbicides.
Microsoft's longterm plan is to have their software on everyone's computer. While forcing vendors to stick Windows on new PCs has worked for a while it won't necessarily work forever. Windows is being eclipsed by Linux in a variety of areas anymore. While Linux isn't about to replace Windows the world over tomorrow it is making headway in a number of large organizations.
.NET. No matter what the underlying operating system Microsoft could still get their software on everyone's computer. The .NET environment is designed to be highly portable and as such can be run on Linux, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Linux, MacOS X, Windows, even embedded OSes. Using .NET frameworks and compiling software to p-code means that software will run on any computer with a .NET runtime environment installed on it. I'm pretty sure Microsoft would want that to be every computer. I think that is the entire reason Microsoft's been pushing .NET so much lately, Windows is going to be turned into a commodity product. Instead of pushing Windows Microsoft will be pushing its .NET environment instead. Munich, the DoD, or all of China could switch to Linux and Microsoft could still make money hand over fist selling those organizations .NET runtimes.
.NET programs available!"
.NET runs on.
.NET will be released on any and every platform with enough users to make money off of.
Enter
"Run Linux and still have all of your old Windows
In the early days of the PC industry Microsoft managed to commoditize the PC. Since MS-DOS would run on any PC it didn't matter what hardware vendor your organization chose. No matter if you bought from IBM, Compaq, or Packard-Bell, DOS and you entire software library would still run. I think it stands to reason that Microsoft wants to do the same thing with the OS market. An OS takes a huge amount of work to produce and maintain. Until the final support contracts run out money has to be poured into the development of the OS to keep it patched and functional and working with the software your big customers need. I could see Microsoft wanting out of that mainstream market in a few years when the playing field is much more competitive with Linux, MacOS, and even an as yet unknown OS vying for supremacy in the market. Instead of slugging it out with real competition Windows could just just another system
ergo, it doesn't seem unlikely
AFAIK Panther doesn't have single file encryption like OS9 did. You can however make an encrypted disk image with Disk Utility and stick sensitive files inside of that. File Vault is nice and all but it encrypts your entire home directory. I much prefer the encrypted directories on Windows 2000/XP. Simulating that feature on Panther isn't too difficult.
Make an encrypted disk image of whatever size you'd like and keep it in your home directory. Set the permissions to 700. Mount the image and make an alias to it. From here you've two two options with different levels of security. The first is to make the disk image a login item. If you do this whenever you log in the image will be mounted and you can put files on it until you're blue in the face or it runs out of space. When you mount it you'll be prompted for your password, you can store the password in the keychain so it doesn't prompt you but that isn't very secure. The second option is to not make the disk image a start up item. Whenever you go to save something you the alias you created in your home directory and the image isn't mounted it will mount and prompt you for your password. Voila encrypted directory. For further coolness replace your Documents folder with alias to the image. encrypted Documents folder.
The aspect of these stories I find most interesting is the sheer number of people that have Photoshop and are using it to alter these photographs. Few if any of these folks strike me as the graphic design type. It is strange then that they would shell out $649 for an app they seemingly only use to retouch NASA photographs.
/>
<knowing chuckle