You know what though? They HATE having multiple devices. Everytime they try and get a device that does more than one thing, one of the features just doesn't quite work the way it should. But they keep wishing and hoping for that all in one.
Blackberry had the early lead with email cause it just worked. Simple to setup, and used technology that allowed for long battery life yet constant communication. Windows mobile email is ridiculously difficult to setup for what it is, and burns battery life waaay more than the blackberrys did.
The blueberry, adding in phone to blackberry wasn't so good. Battery life suffered, and you had this huge honking device.
no, it definitely needs to be lossless. Ogg is a competitor to MP3, not to FLAC. The reason it needs to be lossless it that you want to be able to have a master copy that you can compress for portable media when required or full quality when necessary.
hmmm, I think that the average person who BUYS a mac would do so to TRY a mac. Like I said, boot camp is a last resort. I know people that just don't like the mac interface.. not because it isn't beautiful or effective, but because they have spent so many years programmed to do things the windows way.
I would get a question, like how to change users, and I would point to their login, they would discover, happily that just clicking on the username gives them the option to login as someone else (with password, of course). The point is that they didn't even try, because something that obvious would never occur to them.. they have never experienced something like that.
I have another user that hates the mac, simply because his fingers are programmed to control-c and control-v instead of cmd-c and cmd-v. It frustrates him to no end, and he can't break himself of that habit. Kind of an emacs/vi issue, I guess.
My worry is that a good number of non-power users will install Boot Camp (or one of the alternatives), and stick to what they know, without ever really seeing much of Mac OS X or discovering its advantages. Don't underestimate the draw of the familiar.
Luckily (?), bootcamp is a non-trivial thing.. if they absolutely NEED it, then most people will need to find a geek to install it for them. Though I have no problem with bootcamp graduating out of Beta, I think it would be a bad thing for it to be installed by default for exactly your reason.
The true power of bootcamp is to allow potential buyers a fallback position. I suspect the vast majority of new mac buyers will never ever install it, but the mere fact that exists makes apple a viable platform option during the purchase decision.
Well, the CPU/mobo is a difficult change if it isn't a drop-in, but the HDD upgrade, RAM upgrade, sound card upgrade are definitely viable options on a mac.
I use a G4 powerbook.. I guess technically it is 2 generations behind (G5, intel core duo) and soon to be 3 (core 2 duo). However, I am quite able to work quite happily and speedily, as OS X 10.4.8 Tiger is quite snappy.
That's built in. The first time you boot it, when you set things like time zone and language, you get the option to migrate from another mac. If you want to run that later, you can find the migration assistant.app in Applications/utilities.
It moves over Users, Applications, Network and Machine Settings, Files, and Volumes.. or whichever subset of that list you want.
This requires either having an external drive on yoru machine with the old HDD in it, or simply having the old machine on and plugging the two machines together using firewire (which all macs have had since, dang, forever)
And what's wrong with grandmas? They are predictable, they last longer than you ever expected them to, and when they put lipstick on, you know exactly what they want... and they are very very good at it, bent over the kitchen table. You didn't think grandmas did that? Peek under her dress (or open a terminal) and see just how full featured she is.[1]
Elegant and consistent like installing applications. Yeah there is a little bit of cruft left on an uninstall still, but you *wish* autopackage would be so good, or even used.[2]
[1] Disclaimer: I know a lot of 40 year old grandmothers.. GILFs indeed.
[2] Really not going anywhere with this post, though I did throw up in my mouth a little. Point is, you are incorrect, and you know it, troll.
Not at all, I think there is a LOT of leeway on certain things such as military bases and airports and whatnot (as an example) where choosing one district over another can make zero difference to the country, but impacts locals significantly.
The problem, and why it is called pork, is that there are ridiculously local issues/constraints attached to significant, real bills.
I think Obama should sponser a bill to change the name from the Ted Stevens Bridge to Troll Bridge.
Isn't it the job of a representative to act in the best interest of his constituents, yet the job of a senator is to act in the best interests of the country?
Microsoft made these decisions. That's why they are now considered a monopoly. Allowing an embedded browser in an application did not single handedly catapult the development of windows applications to a whole new level of sophistication.
Using the "defulat" engine is simply a rookie suggestion. You obviously no nothing about application development.
Here's a tip, when trying to perform an ad hominem attack, check your spelling and grammar lest you come across looking like an idiot.
Too bad you will never see this, Mr/Mrs. "Form1, Form2, Form3"
The task scheduler service is for periodic commands, and the SCM for services. You could link the two by making the program a service and then using the task scheduler to issue the start and possibly stop commands, i.e. schedule sc start OnceADay to run once a day. Any dependcies that OnceADay has would automatically be started before it is.
And if you don't have dependencies, then it seems likely that you wouldn't make the command a service, so you basically use the scheduler to make your own services. What I was trying to point out was that launchd helps keep everything in one place, no smacking your forehead going Oh yeah, I have that set to run at 3am. Not a security implication unto itself, just an extra step. The scheduler also lets you run commands as arbitrary users, not just the "Run as a service" users.
"You cannot specify dependencies and ordering for launchd jobs; instead, design daemons to wait for needed resources, or trigger them automatically."
D'oh, good catch. That is future for launchd. Currently in Tiger, launchd does execute RC et al, which as a script is explicit about order of jobs.
If they're unrelated, it shouldn't matter what order they start in.
Well, theoretically yes, but I find that being able to predict exactly what happens during boot is more useful than a {magic step} where lots of things happen at once and exploits on race conditions may or may not exist. launchd moving away from that saddens me, but what can you do?
I appreciate you taking more time on this response.
Services can be started, stopped, and paused on demand via services.msc or sc.exe or the related API functions. Every service can have a list of dependencies. You can see these with services.msc or sc.exe enumdepend. These dependencies are always started before the service in question starts and must be stopped after the service stops.
A dependancy list makes it difficult to determine complete order though and provides a lot less flexibility. What if I have unrelated services, which order do they start in? Alphabetical? I know the answer in OSX. Also, services.msc doesn't allow me an interface to determine whether my list of services has changed or added. Having an XML file (better would be txt, sigh) does give me a lot of flexibility in ensuring something is or isn't added.
Additionally, launchd allows you to put everything in one place.. whether a daemon starts on boot versus daily or hourly (crontab-type entry), it is tons easier to put these in the same place. Services.msc and at are similar to RC/xinit and cron, and launchd "fixes" these issues. It isn't easy to have a periodic process that has dependencies... then you have to script it, and though you see the service, it isn't running though and it is not obvious how it gets started or when.
In any case, the system directories are trusted and can only be modified by highly privileged accounts (i.e. admins); if malware can put files in here, the machine is already compromised.
I put it to you that part of good security is knowing when your system has been compromised. I'm not sure that that reply to binaries and registry and GUID sections are a good thing. I defer to sibling post.
Having launchd using files directly means I can use revision control to determine differences and to rollback if there is a problem.
Compare the entire list of setuid binaries plus daemons that run as root (and any dependent libs) on a UNIX to all the processes on NT that have the SYSTEM token (and any dependenent libs)-- these are the comprehensive lists of system trusted user mode binaries for the two platforms.
Hmmm... see Secure Coding Guide to see why launchd can alleviate if not fix completely the whole setuid security issue. Specifically, see the section Running With Elevated Privileges... setuid is still available and allowed, but not preferred. Launchd is part of the path of moving away from setuid. Further down in the article it is a little more clear with "Because launchd can launch a routine with elevated privileges, you do not have to set the setuid or setgid bits for the helper tool. Any routine that has the setuid or setgid bit set is likely to be a target for attack by malicious users."
I like to think that designing a system based on lessons learned is better than a system that has proven security problems.
First, it's "fanboi", that way you get to question their masculinity, too.
Second, I think TPM sucks, but don't believe for a second that being a member of the group makes one more or less trustworthy.
Lastly, You are dead on with "news for nerds, and stuff that matters" being a misnomer. On the plus side, with so many freakin' idiots going over to digg, the quality of comments here has actually gone up over the last year.
The whining is that it is bug-ridden and a major source of user issues, and although there are better replacements out there, they can at best only run in parallel. Why can't Visual Studio just use whatever renderer is "default" on the machine when I drop in a control? Why only IE?
If I remove the icons and the user NEVER runs IE, there is still the fact that Windows Update still REQUIRES IE, and a simple DNS hack/redirect means the machine is now running IE and being exposed to whatever site redirected to. Just as if a user went to a porn site and got nailed by driveby malware.
And for the record, you don't listen when people complain, do you? And you're wrong about Safari, so nice parting shot, bucko.
I think a lot of your responses are tripe, kneejerk, and not well thought through. Let's look at a few:
"Microsoft does not sign or document the name and purpose of the files it places in SYSTEM32:" Right click on any dll/exe in system32, click properties, click version and you get a short description of what the file is for.
I see a file. I click on it. There is a desciption. ok... so how can I tell if that file is supplied by microsoft or is it droppings from malware? Part of the article you ignore in this instance is that there is a MASSIVE number of files in %winnt%\system32 and you just can't look up every file every day.. heck, even once. Even dll's are a pain in the butt to look up in the registry.. if I register it multiple times there are multiple entries (each under the GUID, not in English) and it is DIFFICULT to determine which one is "real"
"By default, Windows launches all services with SYSTEM-level privileges:" This is plain false, you have to give a user account that the service should run as, and at that point the extremely comprehensive NT security model kicks in.
*sigh*, install windows. Now install IIS, heck at least 2003 doesn't install stuff automatically anymore. Reboot, yada yada.. Got to port 80 on your webserver.. is it running? It IS?? BUT BUT BUT YOU didn't specify what user to run as?!?!? Seems that somehow IIS is running as SYSTEM BY DEFAULT
"Another trick that attackers learned from Microsoft is that Registry entries can be made read-only even to the Administrator, so you can find an exploit and be blocked from disarming it and Malicious code or data can be concealed in NTFS files' secondary streams. These are similar to HFS forks, but so few would think to look at these:" Once executed with administrator priviliges exploits can do hard-to-recover harm to your system, the horror!. These are idiotic complaints.
Think about what the complaint is about, even if not well written: NTFS allows secondary streams, and the only programs that use them for the most part are Malicious. The complaint is that the OS allowing access to these streams is YET ANOTHER point of contention. It is not an exploitable hole (in the hacker sense), but it is exploitable by hackers (in the making Windows hard as hell to keep secure). Simple to close that up.., yet Microsoft just seems completely unconcerned.
"All Windows background processes/daemons are spawned from a single hyper-privileged process and referred to as services.:" Right, just like how OSX daemons are launched by launchd, what is the point here?
Launchd allows you to specify rights. You get a lot more control of the order processes are started. Launchd, like xinit, allows you to start processes on demand. Launchd can control who/what is allowed to start processes, unlike the "net start" command, "oh it's set to automatic, great, I'll start it" mentality.
"It is simple really. Six years into OS X, growing market share, and no viruses in the wild."
Growing to what? 4%? What was it six years ago? 2%? Do you really think that matters?
You know, Apple has a 12% market share in laptops (source) and there may be an argument that laptops are much more likely to be exposed rather than behind home routers and corporate firewalls.
Useful apps like what, Outlook Express: Single largest virus vector on the planet?
The thing is, Microsoft could EASILY avoid complaints by giving end users a CD with all the great programs that will enhance user experience similar to Googlepack. However, this is a post-9/11, errr, post-monopoly world and the rules are different.
I think you should rethink your statement that Apple isn't including third-party software with their Macs.
Slashdot Mirror
Related to the subject at hand, the NEW distribution model is much cheaper and flexible then shipping physical media to stores.
Blackberry had the early lead with email cause it just worked. Simple to setup, and used technology that allowed for long battery life yet constant communication. Windows mobile email is ridiculously difficult to setup for what it is, and burns battery life waaay more than the blackberrys did.
The blueberry, adding in phone to blackberry wasn't so good. Battery life suffered, and you had this huge honking device.
I am unsure that he has that power with a 7% stake in Disney.
no, it definitely needs to be lossless. Ogg is a competitor to MP3, not to FLAC. The reason it needs to be lossless it that you want to be able to have a master copy that you can compress for portable media when required or full quality when necessary.
I would get a question, like how to change users, and I would point to their login, they would discover, happily that just clicking on the username gives them the option to login as someone else (with password, of course). The point is that they didn't even try, because something that obvious would never occur to them.. they have never experienced something like that.
I have another user that hates the mac, simply because his fingers are programmed to control-c and control-v instead of cmd-c and cmd-v. It frustrates him to no end, and he can't break himself of that habit. Kind of an emacs/vi issue, I guess.
Luckily (?), bootcamp is a non-trivial thing.. if they absolutely NEED it, then most people will need to find a geek to install it for them. Though I have no problem with bootcamp graduating out of Beta, I think it would be a bad thing for it to be installed by default for exactly your reason.Dr. Watson
The true power of bootcamp is to allow potential buyers a fallback position. I suspect the vast majority of new mac buyers will never ever install it, but the mere fact that exists makes apple a viable platform option during the purchase decision.
I use a G4 powerbook.. I guess technically it is 2 generations behind (G5, intel core duo) and soon to be 3 (core 2 duo). However, I am quite able to work quite happily and speedily, as OS X 10.4.8 Tiger is quite snappy.
It moves over Users, Applications, Network and Machine Settings, Files, and Volumes.. or whichever subset of that list you want.
This requires either having an external drive on yoru machine with the old HDD in it, or simply having the old machine on and plugging the two machines together using firewire (which all macs have had since, dang, forever)
Elegant and consistent like installing applications. Yeah there is a little bit of cruft left on an uninstall still, but you *wish* autopackage would be so good, or even used.[2] [1] Disclaimer: I know a lot of 40 year old grandmothers.. GILFs indeed. [2] Really not going anywhere with this post, though I did throw up in my mouth a little. Point is, you are incorrect, and you know it, troll.
ah, right.. guess my high school history textbook wasn't updated recently enough ;)
The problem, and why it is called pork, is that there are ridiculously local issues/constraints attached to significant, real bills.
I think Obama should sponser a bill to change the name from the Ted Stevens Bridge to Troll Bridge.
Isn't it the job of a representative to act in the best interest of his constituents, yet the job of a senator is to act in the best interests of the country?
Too bad you will never see this, Mr/Mrs. "Form1, Form2, Form3"
D'oh, good catch. That is future for launchd. Currently in Tiger, launchd does execute RC et al, which as a script is explicit about order of jobs.
Well, theoretically yes, but I find that being able to predict exactly what happens during boot is more useful than a {magic step} where lots of things happen at once and exploits on race conditions may or may not exist. launchd moving away from that saddens me, but what can you do?
A dependancy list makes it difficult to determine complete order though and provides a lot less flexibility. What if I have unrelated services, which order do they start in? Alphabetical? I know the answer in OSX. Also, services.msc doesn't allow me an interface to determine whether my list of services has changed or added. Having an XML file (better would be txt, sigh) does give me a lot of flexibility in ensuring something is or isn't added.
Additionally, launchd allows you to put everything in one place.. whether a daemon starts on boot versus daily or hourly (crontab-type entry), it is tons easier to put these in the same place. Services.msc and at are similar to RC/xinit and cron, and launchd "fixes" these issues. It isn't easy to have a periodic process that has dependencies... then you have to script it, and though you see the service, it isn't running though and it is not obvious how it gets started or when.
I put it to you that part of good security is knowing when your system has been compromised. I'm not sure that that reply to binaries and registry and GUID sections are a good thing. I defer to sibling post.
Having launchd using files directly means I can use revision control to determine differences and to rollback if there is a problem.
Hmmm... see Secure Coding Guide to see why launchd can alleviate if not fix completely the whole setuid security issue. Specifically, see the section Running With Elevated Privileges... setuid is still available and allowed, but not preferred. Launchd is part of the path of moving away from setuid. Further down in the article it is a little more clear with "Because launchd can launch a routine with elevated privileges, you do not have to set the setuid or setgid bits for the helper tool. Any routine that has the setuid or setgid bit set is likely to be a target for attack by malicious users."
I like to think that designing a system based on lessons learned is better than a system that has proven security problems.
Second, I think TPM sucks, but don't believe for a second that being a member of the group makes one more or less trustworthy.
Lastly, You are dead on with "news for nerds, and stuff that matters" being a misnomer. On the plus side, with so many freakin' idiots going over to digg, the quality of comments here has actually gone up over the last year.
If I remove the icons and the user NEVER runs IE, there is still the fact that Windows Update still REQUIRES IE, and a simple DNS hack/redirect means the machine is now running IE and being exposed to whatever site redirected to. Just as if a user went to a porn site and got nailed by driveby malware.
And for the record, you don't listen when people complain, do you? And you're wrong about Safari, so nice parting shot, bucko.
Think about what the complaint is about, even if not well written: NTFS allows secondary streams, and the only programs that use them for the most part are Malicious. The complaint is that the OS allowing access to these streams is YET ANOTHER point of contention. It is not an exploitable hole (in the hacker sense), but it is exploitable by hackers (in the making Windows hard as hell to keep secure). Simple to close that up.., yet Microsoft just seems completely unconcerned.
Launchd allows you to specify rights. You get a lot more control of the order processes are started. Launchd, like xinit, allows you to start processes on demand. Launchd can control who/what is allowed to start processes, unlike the "net start" command, "oh it's set to automatic, great, I'll start it" mentality.
Overall, I give you 4 MEH's out of 5.
Yes, I think that matters.
Sorry, my search terms were "microsoft firewall", not "windows firewall" and I did know what I was looking for before I started...
I heartily do not endorse ISA server.. just noting that it exists.
The thing is, Microsoft could EASILY avoid complaints by giving end users a CD with all the great programs that will enhance user experience similar to Googlepack. However, this is a post-9/11, errr, post-monopoly world and the rules are different.
I think you should rethink your statement that Apple isn't including third-party software with their Macs.
Apple doesn't put everything in one directory.