If you were writing a virus, why would you even bother trying to infect Mac and Linux users when there's a
much easier target available?
The Windows-is-more-popular argument has little, if any real merit. Why, if it's simply a matter of popularity, are there more worms written for IIS than there are for Apache (even though Apache is a far more popular web server)?
This idea is just plain dumb. People who write these viruses are the bottom of the barrel; they have little coding skill. They go after easy targets, and that's why Windows viruses are so prevalent.
If you want to see an intuitive (heh--an intuitive worm?), and effective worm for OS X, you'll be waiting a while. Mail.app is written to avoid these problems. Safe attachments are displayed inline; users don't need to double-click everything under the sun. Unsafe attachments are handled by their respective application, and the file type of unsafe attachments are clearly labeled. Ultimately, using these stupid tricks doesn't work because Apple actually thinks about developing software that works, rather than marketing half-assed software.
Mac and Linux users may not be immune to viruses, but there's a much higher hurdle to jump in order to get a virus on Linux/BSD/Mac. The kind of crunchy-coders that put together these idiot-viruses are not going to get there anytime soon.
One of the most insightful and effective ways I've seen peer-reveiw used was by having people respond to essays they liked.
Each student was assigned to quickly review everyone else's submission for that week and choose at least two essays that they wanted to respond to.
The incentive, was purely positive. As a student you push yourself harder not only because your paper would be available for public review, but also to get positive feedback from classmates.
Unlike most classroom peer-review, the feedback was sincere. Because everything took place in a public forum, where both essays and responses were in public view, the writer was accountable to the auditors of the work.
Traditional peer-review doesn't work, because students either tear each other down, with very little intellectual prowess, or bolster each other so that when it becomes their turn, their feelings won't get hurt. Ninety percent of the time, students are judging other students, not the merits of the work.
Peer-review where both essays and responses are to be audited by the rest of the students makes peer-review a much more effective tool. It holds each individual accountable not only to the faculty responsible for teaching the class, but also to the rest of the class.
The key to this whole thing is that the "teacher" must also be a part of this process. Actively responding to each essay from each student.
The point isn't that there aren't reasons to buy PC hardware. The point is that the reasons given by the parent post are simply outdated, hackneyed misconceptions about Apple products that do nothing but continue to propagate ignorance. I use PC hardware when it's the right choice.
My servers run FreeBSD on PC hardware. Why? Because I can build a server for very little and I have a secure, server-grade OS running it. It's the right choice for the work that needs to be done. And although I agree, Windows NT 5.0 (2000) and Windows NT 5.1 (XP) are better than their predecessors, I can't do many of the things that I can do quickly and easily with a Mac.
I'm interested in what variety of device that you can hook up to with a PC that you can't to a Mac. Especially when the similar Mac vs. Dell PC comparison shows that the Dell doesn't come with Firewire. That means that most digital video cameras are out. (Upgrade? I don't know anymore, but it used to be that if you crack the side of your case to install something you lose your warranty.) I can't think of anything that I can hook up to a PC that I cant to a Mac.
If, by variety you mean cheap, generic equivalents, well then I'm not disagreeing. But I've been burned enough by cheap components that I know better.
Finally, I don't think that there's any way that you can run Mac OS apps on a PC simply because the CPU architecture on the PC won't allow it. The PPC platform will allow emulation of x86, but you simply can't emulate PPC on x86.
Compare a Mac to a similarly equipped PC and you will find that they cost about the same.
2. Compatibility
You want compatibility, with what? With a Mac you can:
Run X-Windows programs
Compile and run *nix programs
Run Windows programs a-la VPC
Run Classic Mac Applications
Share file and print resources via SMB
Share file resources via NFS
Share file and print resources via AFP
Use LPR
Use CUPS
Use 802.3 Ethernet
Use 802.11 Ethernet
Use Windows Print servers
I suppose I could beat this tired, hasn't-been-valid-since-the-early-nineties argument some more, but I have better things to do.
3. Vendor Independence
I'm sorry... maybe you've been living on a different planet since the early nineties. There are no independent PC platform vendors; they all toe the Microsoft line.
If you're talking about standardized PC components in commodity vendor's PCs, well then, you haven't looked at the insides of a Mac for a long, long time. Can you buy some off-the-wall $10.99 AGP4 generic video card and expect to plug it into your machine? No. But if that's the kind of thing you want out of your computer, well then you probably shouldn't buy a mac.
If you don't care about little things like stability, and actually getting work done, then you should be running out and buying all the crappy components you can and stuffing it into your was-working-last-week box.
No, the reason why businesses and home users have historically chosen the PC platform is ignorance. Microsoft marketing told them what decision was best for them. They didn't know otherwise. As the computer becomes more ubiquitous and people begin to understand the fundamental lack of quality in cheap hardware and cheap software they will shift toward a better platform. Whether that's a next generation Windows platform, Linux or Macintosh is up to the individual user, but the propagation of these fundamentally ignorant ideas about the Macintosh platform help no one in making the correct decision.
Ah a walking, talking tragedy... To think, I spent four years in the Army defending your freedom. Such is the state of public education in the nookyooler power known as 'merika. I mean, really--if you're going to lay flamebait on me, at least make it worthy of response.
I'm talking about Enron executives, not Enron. Get it? I'm talking about people directly responsible for creating the California energy crisis, who were responsible for stealing the retirement of thousands of hard working aging people, who are still walking free. I'm talking about Ken Lay in particular. A person who has been working closely with the Bush family for over a decade.
I'd invite you to discuss this, but I'm sure you'll just cry some more. It's okay, you can cry, just don't expect me to listen.
Yeah, right. Amongst the handful of execs who have been 'imprisoned,' we see all those Enron executives (who contributed so generously to getting the prezitend in office) packing it in at the green acres of minimum security.
Hmm... what might that mean?
Hint:
Those who do not contribute enough to the prezitend's campaign for election will be imprisoned.
With Friends Like You, Who Needs Enemies
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
We've been working on AIX for 20 years. Linux is still young. We're helping Linux kernel up to that level.
Yeah... Well can't these same claims be made about the BSD source tree that is available for anyone to use, to learn from, or to improve upon? Even though the BSD kernel has been under development for the last 20+ years, Apple nonetheless decided that it would be in their best interest to write their own kernel.
The point is that the maturuity of a code base doesn't inherently imply that it is any better than new code which is being written.
Linux has found a great ally in corporate code--much ground has been covered in little time--but does that mean that Linux ultimately benefits from corporate partnerships? Does that mean that Linux developers wouldn't be able to successfully develop and implement the same ideas without corporate help?
No
Linux lives outside of a corporate entity structure. Linux doesn't require help from SCO, from IBM or any other corporate or government entity which decides that it wants to utilize Linux. That's the rub for you, Mr. Coward. SCO has done a good job of whipping up a lot of emotion around this issue--but that's the only thing SCO has done.
Although Linux derives benefit from corporate sponsors, it doesn't live based upon that sponsorship. No matter how much you'd like us to believe that SCO actually contributed something unique and wonderful to the Linux kernel, something that couldn't possibly be coded outside the hallowed hills of Utah, what it comes down to in the end is that Linux doesn't rely upon your help, your benevolence, or your understanding of "where the kernel is."
So sorry if I don't seem grateful for all your help, but with friends like you, who needs enemies?
I find it interesting that a part of the whole paradigm of consumer computing is that you should have to buy the same thing again in two years or less. GM used to operate under this same paradigm--you probably don't remember, but back in the olden days, you were lucky if you got a car to last 80k miles. You were expected to buy a new car every 2 years--not only because it was a "status symbol," not only because there was a new one with "better" features, but because the darn thing wasn't dependable after 2 years. Only after Japanese imports forced them to, did American automakers improve the quality of their cars.
PC equipment is in the same mass-market quality vaccuum. And just like the car buyers of the '50s, '60s and '70s, most people are just quietly accepting it as a matter of fact.
Until the Japanese started building cheaper, better cars for the mass market, the only cars that you could depend upon to last upwards of a quarter of a million miles were high-end European imports. I think the metaphor holds true for PC hardware and software.
Windows is like a Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin. It's the, American built 'what were they thinking' economy car built for no other purpose than to reinforce the idea that automobiles equate status. It's the car you hate to have and hate to be seen in just because it sucks (and it was meant to suck--more incentive to buy a newer, more expensive car next year). But since there's no other choice, you buy it anyway.
Linux or FreeBSD right now is like a tricked-out, custom 1983 Toyota Land Cruiser with a 350 cubic inch engine sitting in it. It's an awesome car that has lots of power, is easy to work on, has the features that you need to have if you're going off-road. But really, it's not much fun to ride around after a while because it just lacks amenities, and you've got to put so much work into keeping it up.
And holding true to the metaphor, Apples are more akin to a European Luxury import. Great reliability, comfort, support, features, but ultimately it costs more. Just like the European imports, purchasers of Apple computers tend to hold on to their computers longer because they work well, are reliable and they are more expensive.
There may be more "channels" for content dissemination, but the real issue is content production. Because of what has happened over the last decade, most independent news production houses have had to close their doors. Major players in the market produce their own news which has had the effect of lowering both costs and quality.
I truly hope you are right, but until it is viable for independent content producers to flourish, it doesn't matter how many channels of boring, opinion laden, low-quality crap you have.
Except that the FCC can't reverse anything that occurs in the next two years that's not in the public interest. Those who are in controlling positions have just been given free license to make permanent changes. Any future review cannot effect what they will do in the next two years.
Still using my 400 MHz G4 PowerBook & still loving it more than I ever did any of my PC laptops--no matter how fast they were.
It feels so good finally being content with something.
I look back to the foolishness of my former self with pity; I was never satisfied with my laptop. Somehow I thought that new hardware or a new OS would fix my problems. Somehow I kept at this for years, searching for the right laptop. I became a computing nomad--jumping from laptop to laptop, thinking that maybe my issues would be solved with the latest hardware. And jumping from OS to OS--from Windows to Suse to Debian to Mandrake to OpenBSD to FreeBSD... on and on. I couldn't find anything that really fit my needs.
I find that it wasn't really speed I needed all those years I was on the MHz treadmill--it was just a computer that worked the way it was supposed to.
I'm quite happy with what I have, and for the first time, I know I'll be using a computer until it dies its natural death. For the first time I can concentrate on getting things done rather than that gaggle of concerns and problems I had to think about before I could even start a project.
So, I've found out first-hand what people with old PowerBooks do--a lot more than people with old PC laptops.
How does being trained in the military as a pilot equal intelligence?
Sorry, training != intelligence
What kind of measure of intelligence is flying a plane from Texas to Washington DC?
The man hasn't done anything worth mentioning his whole life. He's been riding on daddy's coattails since childhood. If he had been in the jungles of Vietnam (instead of cowardly making someone else take his place), it would say something about the merits of his character. If he had worked hard at Yale and gotten good grades (instead of spending his time drinking and drugging), it would say something about the merits of his character.
How does muttering a few mispronounced phrases equate bilingual? If the prezitend's understanding of Spanish is what passes for bilingual, I must know about six different languages right now.
I guess character is why the prezitend is trying to hold back the 9/11 commission's report on his failure to meet the threat he was warned about over and over again by the outgoing Clinton administration. If the schmuck hadn't stolen the election, 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all.
Instead of ignoring them, go tell the next homeless person you see wandering around that this nation doesn't tolerate the systematic human degradation of people.
Tell the overwhelming majority of minorities in prison that this nation doesn't tolerate systematic human degradation.
Sorry, maybe you should go back to Fox News, where everything is great! Amerika is #1.
Nah, although living in proximity to a bunch of Clearchannel zombies chanting "United We Stand" scares me more and more all the time, there's still some sanity over here.
I used to wonder how people could let Adolph Hitler do what he did. Now I'm living in the midst of it. Let me tell you how it works: fracture dissent through fear, demonize a minority population and ride the ignorance inherent in nationalism and zealous religion by uniting 'merikans against the rest of the world.
Remember, we elected someone else. I have to believe we still would, and will elect someone else again.
The "supreme" court, decided that tallying votes wasn't all that important.
The thing about "single sourcing" is that people have been doing it for years. It's just never had the high-prestige and high price tag that it has today.
My beef is that there's minority groups in the overly influenced world of tech writing that have convinced many others that "single sourcing" is a recipe that you can pay to learn at a three-day lecture, then go out and write great documentation.
In the majority of cases, what single sourcing turns out to be is a great waste of time and effort. In my experience, it's a pipe-dream for project managers who are otherwise too lazy to think through the ultimate aims of the documentation and how those aims are to be achieved.
I'll very much agree with you, the ideas that go into the buzzword, "single sourcing" are very helpful in creating varying document sets based around a core set of materials. The problem is, most of the time, documentation doesn't fit this model, and managers can't really deal with the extremely intensive and time consuming work up front.
Sorry, I've seen first hand "single sourcing" hard at work. It's the biggest boondoggle since the "synergies" of the late nineties.
Writing good documentation is hard work. It seems to me that the only people who benefit from "single sourcing" are the people who are writing these books and giving overpriced lectures to rooms full of unemployed tech writers.
Ultimately it won't improve the clarity or usefulness of your documentation. It won't provide you with the ability to understand the subject or the audience any better.
Don't get me wrong, if there were a magic-bullet that single source claims to be, I'd be all for it. It would be nice not to have to worry about document formatting. But personally, I think it's simply another way for organizations like STC (The Society for Technical Communication) to filch money from their members.
I have two kinds of programming books on my shelves. One kind is an introductory book, the other is a reference. My reference books I use all the time. But the introductory books are darn near disposable. After reading them, they become paperweights. Don't get me wrong, they are a necessary part of learning, but after I've learned what they have to give, it's a rare case that I might pick them up again.
The reference books I have are always a source of new information. These always seem to be much more accurate than the introductory books in the code examples that are given.
The point I'm trying to make is not that the student has done something wrong, but that the student should not trust the author of an introductory book. Interpreting the information with a sceptical eye means that the student, rather than being frustrated by mistakes, can look at the mistakes in code as a challenge.
It may make someone feel good to have made something that works, but in the end, feel-good programs don't really teach you that much. It's the concepts behind the program that are important.
I agree that experimenting really does a good job of teaching, but experimentation is going above and beyond what the book has to offer.
Errors in examples give you the responsibility of thinking about the code. You've got to understand what it is doing, rather than just mimicking the examples.
Believe me, I've spent my fair share of time and frustration trying to debug bad examples. It took a long time to learn, but when I don't trust the author, I find that the errors are more challenging than frustrating.
A couple of O'reilly books in particular, Steve Oualline's Practical C Programming and his Practical C++ Programming purposely have errors in the examples for just this reason.
The difference is, Steve tells you that the errors are there. It's a good learning technique, and forces you to pay attention to the concepts rather than the examples.
You sound like you haven't used Apple hardware or software in a while, so I thought I'd respond.
The idea of Apple locking people into overpriced hardware is extremely outdated.
Look inside a Mac, most of the components are standard. Apple has been vigilantly following open hardware standards, and integrating low-cost, high-quality hardware into their systems for years now. Apple has been making any Apple created standards (like Firewire) open.
The only hardware "lock" that's on a Mac right now is the PPC processor. But that's a relative statement since the PPC is a much better choice in many ways than it's x86 counterpart. (In spite of Motorola just messing up.)
On the software side, Apple has done everything it can in OS X to allow Apple users to have as many choices as possible, and be able to integrate Apple hardware as many places as possible. Out-of-the-box integration of Samba allows users to easily integrate their Mac into a Windows network. Out of the box integration of CUPS allows users to integrate their Mac into a UNIX network. On either Windows or Linux, you don't have this kind of easy cross-platform integration.
Right now, even though the Macintosh is my platform of choice, there is nothing that locks me into an expensive hardware upgrade. Though I could never see myself going back to the days of, "it's supposed to work, but it doesn't" on Windows, or, "it works now that I've spent two hours learning more than I needed to know about it" on my Linux/BSD laptops. Apple has been good about letting me control what I want to do with my data and my computer.
I find it quite ironic that people are still talking about Apple locking people into expensive hardware upgrades when prices for comparably equipped computers on the PC side are pretty much the same. Don't get me wrong, I know you can buy the components and build it for less, heck, I used to do that myself. The fact is, the quality of the end-product is not as good as the hardware that was--from start to finish--designed to work together.
I guess at one point, when I had more time than money, I would have thought the same. When you're looking at PC components, and trying to buy the cheapest piece of equipment that you can find, I guess that makes sense. But from a user standpoint, a piecemeal machine is a recipe for disaster. Since I purchased my Mac, my PC friends have gone through 3 or 4 different incarnations of their computers. They're constantly working on trying to fix whatever the problem is today. They just aren't satisfied with the performance of their machine--no matter how fast the processor is supposed to be. I'm still quite happy with my Powerbook, and will be for years to come.
Apple has provided a platform that is ubiquitous--I don't mean in herd numbers, but in its ability to go anywhere, and do anything. Apple is relying on the quality of its user experience as an incentive to upgrade the hardware later on. You're not locked into buying another Apple, because the ubiquity provided by Apple means that if you want to, you can change to a different platform.
The proof is in the inspection process that hadn't found anything.
I've seen the links. Thanks for posting them. As an aside: I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything regarding the Al Qaeda assasination attempt of Saddam Hussein.
Oh, and was Slovenia on the list of "50?" The leader just outright said that the bush administration is wrong. Slovenia does not support the bush administration's invasion (even though the bush administrtation set aside bribe money for them).
The point is that the number 35, or 45 or 50 or whatever the bush administrtion decides it is today is not larger than the '91 coalition. The number is contrived. The coallition of '91 never needed to contrive coalition status via overfligt rights. Turkey outright said that they don't support the effort by not letting US troops be stationed there. But still, Turkey is on the bush administration's list. The number is meaningless; personally I think it's as legitmate as this 'president' and the action itself.
But since some people think the number is so important, we'll okay then. Let's see, right now there are 271 countries in the world. And if all things are equal and the number of countries is the only thing that matters, then there are 226 countries that do not support this action.
So 30, 45 50, it doesn't matter. The coallition of 1991 counted the number of countries that actively took part in the action. In '91 they didn't try to tally votes because there was true support of the world community.
David Kay may have been the guy who headed nuclear inspections in Iraq for several years, but that's not the point. There's someone else who was on the same job more recently and who has much more recent information about the state of Iraq.
Let's say I worked for a company five years ago as quality control and inspecting the equipment they have, then I leave. Five years later things have changed. Someone else comes in who has all my documentation, who also has intimate knowledge of how the systems work. Who do you think is better qualified to say what state the systems are in? Even though I knew how things were set up five years ago, all I can say for certainty is what they were like five years ago.
I don't recall ever insulting you. One way or another I never meant to (I think maybe this refers to the 'merikan ignorance statement and the "stupid statement" reference. Both of them were directed towards the talking heads that, I believe, want to convince us of the truth that suits their interests).
Honestly, we all hope that this turns out better than it has started. None of us support Saddam or want to preserve the way things were, but I fear the way the bush administration is bumbling into this, we'll be paying for this with blood for decades to come.
I don't know whether you've been in the military or not. I spent four years in the Army. I consciously made the decision that I was willing to pay the ultimate price to defend "America." From my perspective, all the things that I had pledged my very existence to defend are being quickly destroyed from within.
Like I said, we disagree. What it comes down to is that neither of us can do a damn thing about what's happening. I believe that even if you, I and every other citizen were to disagree with this too, the bush administration wouldn't care.
Slashdot Mirror
- If you were writing a virus, why would you even bother trying to infect Mac and Linux users when there's a
- much easier target available?
The Windows-is-more-popular argument has little, if any real merit. Why, if it's simply a matter of popularity, are there more worms written for IIS than there are for Apache (even though Apache is a far more popular web server)?This idea is just plain dumb. People who write these viruses are the bottom of the barrel; they have little coding skill. They go after easy targets, and that's why Windows viruses are so prevalent.
If you want to see an intuitive (heh--an intuitive worm?), and effective worm for OS X, you'll be waiting a while. Mail.app is written to avoid these problems. Safe attachments are displayed inline; users don't need to double-click everything under the sun. Unsafe attachments are handled by their respective application, and the file type of unsafe attachments are clearly labeled. Ultimately, using these stupid tricks doesn't work because Apple actually thinks about developing software that works, rather than marketing half-assed software.
Mac and Linux users may not be immune to viruses, but there's a much higher hurdle to jump in order to get a virus on Linux/BSD/Mac. The kind of crunchy-coders that put together these idiot-viruses are not going to get there anytime soon.
If you own 10.2, 10.3 is a $29.00 upgrade.
One of the most insightful and effective ways I've seen peer-reveiw used was by having people respond to essays they liked.
Each student was assigned to quickly review everyone else's submission for that week and choose at least two essays that they wanted to respond to.
The incentive, was purely positive. As a student you push yourself harder not only because your paper would be available for public review, but also to get positive feedback from classmates.
Unlike most classroom peer-review, the feedback was sincere. Because everything took place in a public forum, where both essays and responses were in public view, the writer was accountable to the auditors of the work.
Traditional peer-review doesn't work, because students either tear each other down, with very little intellectual prowess, or bolster each other so that when it becomes their turn, their feelings won't get hurt. Ninety percent of the time, students are judging other students, not the merits of the work.
Peer-review where both essays and responses are to be audited by the rest of the students makes peer-review a much more effective tool. It holds each individual accountable not only to the faculty responsible for teaching the class, but also to the rest of the class.
The key to this whole thing is that the "teacher" must also be a part of this process. Actively responding to each essay from each student.
I think we can split hairs all day on this one.
The point isn't that there aren't reasons to buy PC hardware. The point is that the reasons given by the parent post are simply outdated, hackneyed misconceptions about Apple products that do nothing but continue to propagate ignorance. I use PC hardware when it's the right choice.
My servers run FreeBSD on PC hardware. Why? Because I can build a server for very little and I have a secure, server-grade OS running it. It's the right choice for the work that needs to be done. And although I agree, Windows NT 5.0 (2000) and Windows NT 5.1 (XP) are better than their predecessors, I can't do many of the things that I can do quickly and easily with a Mac.
I'm interested in what variety of device that you can hook up to with a PC that you can't to a Mac. Especially when the similar Mac vs. Dell PC comparison shows that the Dell doesn't come with Firewire. That means that most digital video cameras are out. (Upgrade? I don't know anymore, but it used to be that if you crack the side of your case to install something you lose your warranty.) I can't think of anything that I can hook up to a PC that I cant to a Mac.
If, by variety you mean cheap, generic equivalents, well then I'm not disagreeing. But I've been burned enough by cheap components that I know better.
Finally, I don't think that there's any way that you can run Mac OS apps on a PC simply because the CPU architecture on the PC won't allow it. The PPC platform will allow emulation of x86, but you simply can't emulate PPC on x86.
2. Compatibility
- Run X-Windows programs
I suppose I could beat this tired, hasn't-been-valid-since-the-early-nineties argument some more, but I have better things to do.Compile and run *nix programs
Run Windows programs a-la VPC
Run Classic Mac Applications
Share file and print resources via SMB
Share file resources via NFS
Share file and print resources via AFP
Use LPR
Use CUPS
Use 802.3 Ethernet
Use 802.11 Ethernet
Use Windows Print servers
3. Vendor Independence
If you're talking about standardized PC components in commodity vendor's PCs, well then, you haven't looked at the insides of a Mac for a long, long time. Can you buy some off-the-wall $10.99 AGP4 generic video card and expect to plug it into your machine? No. But if that's the kind of thing you want out of your computer, well then you probably shouldn't buy a mac.
If you don't care about little things like stability, and actually getting work done, then you should be running out and buying all the crappy components you can and stuffing it into your was-working-last-week box.
No, the reason why businesses and home users have historically chosen the PC platform is ignorance. Microsoft marketing told them what decision was best for them. They didn't know otherwise. As the computer becomes more ubiquitous and people begin to understand the fundamental lack of quality in cheap hardware and cheap software they will shift toward a better platform. Whether that's a next generation Windows platform, Linux or Macintosh is up to the individual user, but the propagation of these fundamentally ignorant ideas about the Macintosh platform help no one in making the correct decision.
Ah a walking, talking tragedy... To think, I spent four years in the Army defending your freedom. Such is the state of public education in the nookyooler power known as 'merika. I mean, really--if you're going to lay flamebait on me, at least make it worthy of response.
Ken Lay (or as prezitend george likes to call him "kenny boy"), has a long history contributing to the prezitend.
I'm talking about Enron executives, not Enron. Get it? I'm talking about people directly responsible for creating the California energy crisis, who were responsible for stealing the retirement of thousands of hard working aging people, who are still walking free. I'm talking about Ken Lay in particular. A person who has been working closely with the Bush family for over a decade.
I'd invite you to discuss this, but I'm sure you'll just cry some more. It's okay, you can cry, just don't expect me to listen.
Hmm... what might that mean? Hint:
The point is that the maturuity of a code base doesn't inherently imply that it is any better than new code which is being written.
Linux has found a great ally in corporate code--much ground has been covered in little time--but does that mean that Linux ultimately benefits from corporate partnerships? Does that mean that Linux developers wouldn't be able to successfully develop and implement the same ideas without corporate help?
No
Linux lives outside of a corporate entity structure. Linux doesn't require help from SCO, from IBM or any other corporate or government entity which decides that it wants to utilize Linux. That's the rub for you, Mr. Coward. SCO has done a good job of whipping up a lot of emotion around this issue--but that's the only thing SCO has done.
Although Linux derives benefit from corporate sponsors, it doesn't live based upon that sponsorship. No matter how much you'd like us to believe that SCO actually contributed something unique and wonderful to the Linux kernel, something that couldn't possibly be coded outside the hallowed hills of Utah, what it comes down to in the end is that Linux doesn't rely upon your help, your benevolence, or your understanding of "where the kernel is."
So sorry if I don't seem grateful for all your help, but with friends like you, who needs enemies?
PC equipment is in the same mass-market quality vaccuum. And just like the car buyers of the '50s, '60s and '70s, most people are just quietly accepting it as a matter of fact.
Until the Japanese started building cheaper, better cars for the mass market, the only cars that you could depend upon to last upwards of a quarter of a million miles were high-end European imports. I think the metaphor holds true for PC hardware and software.
Windows is like a Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin. It's the, American built 'what were they thinking' economy car built for no other purpose than to reinforce the idea that automobiles equate status. It's the car you hate to have and hate to be seen in just because it sucks (and it was meant to suck--more incentive to buy a newer, more expensive car next year). But since there's no other choice, you buy it anyway.
Linux or FreeBSD right now is like a tricked-out, custom 1983 Toyota Land Cruiser with a 350 cubic inch engine sitting in it. It's an awesome car that has lots of power, is easy to work on, has the features that you need to have if you're going off-road. But really, it's not much fun to ride around after a while because it just lacks amenities, and you've got to put so much work into keeping it up.
And holding true to the metaphor, Apples are more akin to a European Luxury import. Great reliability, comfort, support, features, but ultimately it costs more. Just like the European imports, purchasers of Apple computers tend to hold on to their computers longer because they work well, are reliable and they are more expensive.
There may be more "channels" for content dissemination, but the real issue is content production. Because of what has happened over the last decade, most independent news production houses have had to close their doors. Major players in the market produce their own news which has had the effect of lowering both costs and quality.
I truly hope you are right, but until it is viable for independent content producers to flourish, it doesn't matter how many channels of boring, opinion laden, low-quality crap you have.
Except that the FCC can't reverse anything that occurs in the next two years that's not in the public interest. Those who are in controlling positions have just been given free license to make permanent changes. Any future review cannot effect what they will do in the next two years.
:-P
Oh yeah, you know where I learned that? NPR
Still using my 400 MHz G4 PowerBook & still loving it more than I ever did any of my PC laptops--no matter how fast they were.
It feels so good finally being content with something.
I look back to the foolishness of my former self with pity; I was never satisfied with my laptop. Somehow I thought that new hardware or a new OS would fix my problems. Somehow I kept at this for years, searching for the right laptop. I became a computing nomad--jumping from laptop to laptop, thinking that maybe my issues would be solved with the latest hardware. And jumping from OS to OS--from Windows to Suse to Debian to Mandrake to OpenBSD to FreeBSD... on and on. I couldn't find anything that really fit my needs.
I find that it wasn't really speed I needed all those years I was on the MHz treadmill--it was just a computer that worked the way it was supposed to.
I'm quite happy with what I have, and for the first time, I know I'll be using a computer until it dies its natural death. For the first time I can concentrate on getting things done rather than that gaggle of concerns and problems I had to think about before I could even start a project.
So, I've found out first-hand what people with old PowerBooks do--a lot more than people with old PC laptops.
1. Click here.
2. Look for the section labeled "Exclude Stories from the Homepage" just in case you lose your way, it's near the top of the page.
3. Under the "Topics" section there is a checkbox labeled "Caldera." Make sure that checbox has a check in it.
4. Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.
Dood, this is such a cool hack! Now Vote for me at the Best Crakz and Warez site.
How does being trained in the military as a pilot equal intelligence?
Sorry, training != intelligence
What kind of measure of intelligence is flying a plane from Texas to Washington DC?
The man hasn't done anything worth mentioning his whole life. He's been riding on daddy's coattails since childhood. If he had been in the jungles of Vietnam (instead of cowardly making someone else take his place), it would say something about the merits of his character. If he had worked hard at Yale and gotten good grades (instead of spending his time drinking and drugging), it would say something about the merits of his character.
How does muttering a few mispronounced phrases equate bilingual? If the prezitend's understanding of Spanish is what passes for bilingual, I must know about six different languages right now.
I guess character is why the prezitend is trying to hold back the 9/11 commission's report on his failure to meet the threat he was warned about over and over again by the outgoing Clinton administration. If the schmuck hadn't stolen the election, 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all.
Instead of ignoring them, go tell the next homeless person you see wandering around that this nation doesn't tolerate the systematic human degradation of people.
Tell the overwhelming majority of minorities in prison that this nation doesn't tolerate systematic human degradation.
Sorry, maybe you should go back to Fox News, where everything is great! Amerika is #1.
/home/tres:$ sudo pkg_delete osama_bin_laden-1.2
oops...pkg_delete: couldn`t entirely delete package (perhaps the packing list is incorrectly specified?)
well then, we have:
pkg_delete: couldn`t entirely delete package (perhaps the packing list is incorrectly specified?)
hmm... well we couldn't get those done right, but we can fix some other things:
/home/tres:$ cd /usr/ports/us/liberty /usr/ports/us/liberty: $ make install clean
...
I know it was there just a little while ago. grr...can't find dependency: bill_of_rights.so
Ha! I know how to fix it!
/home/tres:$ sudo portupgrade president-43_b
Oh yeah! Try that with apt-getFine. You send me your e-mail address & I'll forward messages from all those people whose freedoms you're concerned about preserving.
Yeah... just think of it, you'll singlehandedly be preserving their constitutionally granted right of free speech.
Nah, although living in proximity to a bunch of Clearchannel zombies chanting "United We Stand" scares me more and more all the time, there's still some sanity over here.
I used to wonder how people could let Adolph Hitler do what he did. Now I'm living in the midst of it. Let me tell you how it works: fracture dissent through fear, demonize a minority population and ride the ignorance inherent in nationalism and zealous religion by uniting 'merikans against the rest of the world.
Remember, we elected someone else. I have to believe we still would, and will elect someone else again.
The "supreme" court, decided that tallying votes wasn't all that important.
We elected Gore, they selected prezitend retard.
The thing about "single sourcing" is that people have been doing it for years. It's just never had the high-prestige and high price tag that it has today.
My beef is that there's minority groups in the overly influenced world of tech writing that have convinced many others that "single sourcing" is a recipe that you can pay to learn at a three-day lecture, then go out and write great documentation.
In the majority of cases, what single sourcing turns out to be is a great waste of time and effort. In my experience, it's a pipe-dream for project managers who are otherwise too lazy to think through the ultimate aims of the documentation and how those aims are to be achieved.
I'll very much agree with you, the ideas that go into the buzzword, "single sourcing" are very helpful in creating varying document sets based around a core set of materials. The problem is, most of the time, documentation doesn't fit this model, and managers can't really deal with the extremely intensive and time consuming work up front.
Sorry, I've seen first hand "single sourcing" hard at work. It's the biggest boondoggle since the "synergies" of the late nineties.
Writing good documentation is hard work. It seems to me that the only people who benefit from "single sourcing" are the people who are writing these books and giving overpriced lectures to rooms full of unemployed tech writers.
Ultimately it won't improve the clarity or usefulness of your documentation. It won't provide you with the ability to understand the subject or the audience any better.
Don't get me wrong, if there were a magic-bullet that single source claims to be, I'd be all for it. It would be nice not to have to worry about document formatting. But personally, I think it's simply another way for organizations like STC (The Society for Technical Communication) to filch money from their members.
What, was that $0.01 charge at CompUSA too much for you? :-)
I have two kinds of programming books on my shelves. One kind is an introductory book, the other is a reference. My reference books I use all the time. But the introductory books are darn near disposable. After reading them, they become paperweights. Don't get me wrong, they are a necessary part of learning, but after I've learned what they have to give, it's a rare case that I might pick them up again.
The reference books I have are always a source of new information. These always seem to be much more accurate than the introductory books in the code examples that are given.
The point I'm trying to make is not that the student has done something wrong, but that the student should not trust the author of an introductory book. Interpreting the information with a sceptical eye means that the student, rather than being frustrated by mistakes, can look at the mistakes in code as a challenge.
It may make someone feel good to have made something that works, but in the end, feel-good programs don't really teach you that much. It's the concepts behind the program that are important.
I agree that experimenting really does a good job of teaching, but experimentation is going above and beyond what the book has to offer.
Believe me, I've spent my fair share of time and frustration trying to debug bad examples. It took a long time to learn, but when I don't trust the author, I find that the errors are more challenging than frustrating.
A couple of O'reilly books in particular, Steve Oualline's Practical C Programming and his Practical C++ Programming purposely have errors in the examples for just this reason.
The difference is, Steve tells you that the errors are there. It's a good learning technique, and forces you to pay attention to the concepts rather than the examples.
You sound like you haven't used Apple hardware or software in a while, so I thought I'd respond.
The idea of Apple locking people into overpriced hardware is extremely outdated.
Look inside a Mac, most of the components are standard. Apple has been vigilantly following open hardware standards, and integrating low-cost, high-quality hardware into their systems for years now. Apple has been making any Apple created standards (like Firewire) open.
The only hardware "lock" that's on a Mac right now is the PPC processor. But that's a relative statement since the PPC is a much better choice in many ways than it's x86 counterpart. (In spite of Motorola just messing up.)
On the software side, Apple has done everything it can in OS X to allow Apple users to have as many choices as possible, and be able to integrate Apple hardware as many places as possible. Out-of-the-box integration of Samba allows users to easily integrate their Mac into a Windows network. Out of the box integration of CUPS allows users to integrate their Mac into a UNIX network. On either Windows or Linux, you don't have this kind of easy cross-platform integration.
Right now, even though the Macintosh is my platform of choice, there is nothing that locks me into an expensive hardware upgrade. Though I could never see myself going back to the days of, "it's supposed to work, but it doesn't" on Windows, or, "it works now that I've spent two hours learning more than I needed to know about it" on my Linux/BSD laptops. Apple has been good about letting me control what I want to do with my data and my computer.
I find it quite ironic that people are still talking about Apple locking people into expensive hardware upgrades when prices for comparably equipped computers on the PC side are pretty much the same. Don't get me wrong, I know you can buy the components and build it for less, heck, I used to do that myself. The fact is, the quality of the end-product is not as good as the hardware that was--from start to finish--designed to work together.
I guess at one point, when I had more time than money, I would have thought the same. When you're looking at PC components, and trying to buy the cheapest piece of equipment that you can find, I guess that makes sense. But from a user standpoint, a piecemeal machine is a recipe for disaster. Since I purchased my Mac, my PC friends have gone through 3 or 4 different incarnations of their computers. They're constantly working on trying to fix whatever the problem is today. They just aren't satisfied with the performance of their machine--no matter how fast the processor is supposed to be. I'm still quite happy with my Powerbook, and will be for years to come.
Apple has provided a platform that is ubiquitous--I don't mean in herd numbers, but in its ability to go anywhere, and do anything. Apple is relying on the quality of its user experience as an incentive to upgrade the hardware later on. You're not locked into buying another Apple, because the ubiquity provided by Apple means that if you want to, you can change to a different platform.
Try them, you'll be amazed.
Well, what were you expecting...
The proof is in the inspection process that hadn't found anything.
I've seen the links. Thanks for posting them. As an aside: I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything regarding the Al Qaeda assasination attempt of Saddam Hussein.
Oh, and was Slovenia on the list of "50?" The leader just outright said that the bush administration is wrong. Slovenia does not support the bush administration's invasion (even though the bush administrtation set aside bribe money for them).
The point is that the number 35, or 45 or 50 or whatever the bush administrtion decides it is today is not larger than the '91 coalition. The number is contrived. The coallition of '91 never needed to contrive coalition status via overfligt rights. Turkey outright said that they don't support the effort by not letting US troops be stationed there. But still, Turkey is on the bush administration's list. The number is meaningless; personally I think it's as legitmate as this 'president' and the action itself.
But since some people think the number is so important, we'll okay then. Let's see, right now there are 271 countries in the world. And if all things are equal and the number of countries is the only thing that matters, then there are 226 countries that do not support this action.
So 30, 45 50, it doesn't matter. The coallition of 1991 counted the number of countries that actively took part in the action. In '91 they didn't try to tally votes because there was true support of the world community.
David Kay may have been the guy who headed nuclear inspections in Iraq for several years, but that's not the point. There's someone else who was on the same job more recently and who has much more recent information about the state of Iraq.
Let's say I worked for a company five years ago as quality control and inspecting the equipment they have, then I leave. Five years later things have changed. Someone else comes in who has all my documentation, who also has intimate knowledge of how the systems work. Who do you think is better qualified to say what state the systems are in? Even though I knew how things were set up five years ago, all I can say for certainty is what they were like five years ago.
I don't recall ever insulting you. One way or another I never meant to (I think maybe this refers to the 'merikan ignorance statement and the "stupid statement" reference. Both of them were directed towards the talking heads that, I believe, want to convince us of the truth that suits their interests).
Honestly, we all hope that this turns out better than it has started. None of us support Saddam or want to preserve the way things were, but I fear the way the bush administration is bumbling into this, we'll be paying for this with blood for decades to come.
I don't know whether you've been in the military or not. I spent four years in the Army. I consciously made the decision that I was willing to pay the ultimate price to defend "America." From my perspective, all the things that I had pledged my very existence to defend are being quickly destroyed from within.
Like I said, we disagree. What it comes down to is that neither of us can do a damn thing about what's happening. I believe that even if you, I and every other citizen were to disagree with this too, the bush administration wouldn't care.
Anyway, thanks for your time and your viewpoint.