If you actually read the relevant portion of the Vista license instead of listening to all of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric, you'll find that the wording is such that you can run Vista in virtualization--as long as you aren't using the same copy of Vista as both host and guest. This is a departure from XPs license, which did not differentiate, and thus allowed you to run the same copy of XP on as many VMs as you wanted, so long as they were all on the same physical machine (lots of people considered this to be a loophole--looks like Microsoft did, too).
1) Most of these "users" never bought Windows (less than 10% of all PC owners have bought Windows)
That depends on the definition of "bought". People "buy" Windows every day when it comes on their computer from the OEM.
2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Microsoft Windows worth less than $2 an hour.
I don't think this justifies making them buy Vista every time they want to make a substantive change to their computer. There is no reason (other than sheer greed) that a Vista installation shouldn't be transferrable (note: not copyable--transferrable) from one machine to another, much less simple hardware upgrades.
The Gotuit.com free online video player now works for Linux users with the recent Flash 9 beta release.
Note the "with the recent Flash 9 beta release" which implies that Gotuit doesn't work if you don't have the Flash 9 beta release. The requirements are clearly stated.
Then Wine doesn't support Linux either, I guess? Or any piece of Linux software which isn't directly ported to work on evert obscure piece of hardware that Linux supports?
Please, this is pedantry at best and trolling at worst.
Except that I was also talking about more parties and/or more ideas being represented. I know plenty of conservatives that don't really get the party-agenda on homosexuals--they don't care, or better, they see no reason to deny them these rights. However, they don't look at the individual issues and who is supporting them--they just look at the party affiliation and vote thusly.
In many elections (for congress and local seats), there are people running who are either third-party candidates or independants. They tend to differ significantly in idealogy from either of the main party candidates, but they tend to get almost no press because of the broken system. If people sought out these candidates, they might see something there that fits them better than either of the two main parties. But they don't. They're lazy and probably don't even bother voting in the midterms, believing that only the President really matters. I think that in the past few years, we've seen what can happen when the same party controls both the presidency and the congress. I guess for someone who believes everything the Republican party believes (and even that statement is lumping them all together) then this would be ok, but I sincerely believe that most people have at least somewhat differing opinions on some of the issues.
Everyone draws their lines differently. There are a whole boatload of "intent" laws that make assumptions on what a person intends to do, and punishes them before they're even allowed to try. I would say that willfully inciting violence should probably be punishable, but making an offhanded remark in front of 100 people to the effect that "X minority group should all be hanged" probably shouldn't count--but in some cases, that's enough to get slapped with a charge of incitement.
64-bit is only supported if the app is compiled against a few specific libraries (I forget which ones). Any other apps will behave as 32-bit. I'm not sure if the next OS X release will change this.
TPM can be used as a way to sign binaries from the bootloader all the way through the OS and its libraries. You can, in theory, guarantee that your OS has not been compromised. This can even be done with Linux, though it would make replacing binaries a little more difficult. The tradeoff in security may be worth it to some people.
So yes, TPM can be used for good. You're just assuming that only closed-source vendors would ever possibly use it. Google for Bruce Potter and TPM--he opened my eyes at Defcon on this particular subject.
I use 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen (Dell Precision M70.) I have no problems with it. Font sizes are adjustable, so if I'm having problems reading something, I can just crank it up. I'd rather have the option for better resolution than not. Unfortunately, that'e never been an area where Apple excelled--they tend to cater strictly to the median user.
I'd buy a MBB today if they suddenly released one with 1920x1200, and going to 1680xwhatever on the 15" would really make me consider one.
To those who believe we have regressed to a point where the ground rules - the system itself - is illegitimate or is of questionable legitimacy, there is no better means of expressing this determination on the ballot than by abstaining from voting in federal elections or even in all elections.... What better way to vote against the system than to join the 45-60% of elligible voters who consistently choose to abstain from voting federal elections?
Except that there is no way to distinguish this from the apathetic populace. Something like 30% of Americans vote in the 'midterm' elections. YOu can't tell me that 70% of the country is trying to make a point by staying home. My guess is that most of them simply don't care, or simply see it as "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."
My goal when I vote (in midterms) is to keep one party from controlling both the congress and the presidency. That's about the only 'check' I feel we can manage in this system.
Yet hopefully your representation at the state or at least local level remains strong. Do not overlook these elections even if you abstain from federal elections.
Actually, I live in Texas. Our state and even local elections are almost as much of a joke as the federal ones.
You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.
You look at the American government through polarized lenses. You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals. Not all Democrats vote along party lines. Nor do all Republicans, yet you're willing to stay home from the elections rather than looking at the issues, who supports what, and making a decision. Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates (their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one).
That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy. It's why They win, every time. It's why our elections are largely for show. It's why, no matter who wins next November, we'll probably be in exactly the same boat.
Youtube's indexer has never been just super-current. Oftentimes I'd click on a video only to find that it'd been removed due to terms of use violations.
I don't think that Apple letting you see the EULA first is a bad thing--in fact, I said that was the way it should be. See the part you quoted: "The "contract" should be agreed upon before the point of sale, which means that there isn't any need to display it at install time."
But it should be reasonable. I shouldn't have to get online to view the EULA. I shouldn't have to know that there's a EULA attached beforehand. You're coming from the standpoint of someone who knows these things even exist. Lots of people don't--they go to the store, buy a piece of software, and plan on installing it. They don't know the provisions of the EULA. Even if they know there is a EULA (despite being standard on software, there is no NEED for one) they don't know what is contained therein. They don't know what they will have to agree to in order to install the software.
The EULA should be clearly available on the software package. If it's not feasible to put it on the software package, it should be available at checkout before the purchase is completed. If Apple does this, kudos. They're doing the right thing. If they don't, well, then I have to lump them in with all the rest of the software producers/retail outlets.
Look at it this way. Content providers are trying to tell us that when you go to the store, fork over some cash, and take home a box with some software in it, what you're really paying for is a license to use the software. The license--what you can do with it--is spelled out only AFTER you've opened the package, put the CD in your computer, and started the install process. In other words, you have no idea what you're buying when you're in the store. If there was no EULA, this would be different, because copyright still applies (meaning I can't make copies of the software) and what I'm buying is a copy of the software (much like buying a book--you're buying a tangible copy of the product).
Again, my entire beef with this is that the EULA isn't known ahead of time. I have no idea how Apple operates in this regard. I do know that Microsoft's EULA isn't printed on the box, and that Best Buy does not have a copy at the registers.
I believe this is incorrect. Most places in the world have fair trading laws which means they must take back the product, even if they say otherwise in the store. If they don't then that is an issue for the courts. I don't believe that stores are at liberty to say "you can't return that!" in reasonable circumstances.
I'd have to read the laws to know, but I did indicate the existence of these laws in my original post (you conveniently removed that bit). Yes, it may be up to the courts to decide. That would be an interesting legal test.
I'm normally a big fan of accountability, but in this case, I have to disagree. Most things in the store don't require agreeing to a "contract" with the creator in order to use them, but after you buy them. The "contract" should be agreed upon before the point of sale, which means that there isn't any need to display it at install time.
Also, most stores allow returns on items if you aren't satisfied with them, at least within the first 14 or 30 days (many states have laws regarding this). Yet software is a different story, and what's worse, most stores don't tell you up front that software cannot be returned (usually it's on the receipt, which--surprise surprise, you don't see until the transaction is complete). So I could take the software back before I see the license (which I shouldn't have to get online to view--it should be on the back of the box, if nothing else) or I can open it, read the license, and then decide whether or not I agree to it.
It's really quite a horrible situation--or it would be if anyone ever actually read those things.
That's a fair counter. I can't claim that VMWare isn't good--it is. But to really test it, I'd need to use Bootcamp on my wife's Macbook--something I don't think she's particularly interested in!
I use VMWare daily at my job, too (Linux is the host, though). I only have 1gig of RAM, so that's probably my limiting factor. Nevertheless, it feels more sluggish to me than the Macbook does.
Relative specs: P4-3.2GHZ vs CoreDuo 1.87GHZ, 1gig ram in each machine, slightly faster hard drive on the Linux box. I typically assign 512megs to the virtual host, though if I'm going to be running multiple machines, I'll drop that down a bit.
If my "cracked" OS has direct access to the NIC, then I can monitor what is sent over it. I can tell if the "Blue Pill" has cracked my box and is calling home.
Maybe, depending on how much and/what/ the MMU is hiding. For example, current rootkits may hide their processes, may patch netstat to hide sockets, and probably does this through hiding syscalls. A rootkitted MMU could use a the system's drivers and syscalls to do the dirty work, just like a standard rootkit, but could hide attempts to detect the kit by virtue of the fact that it can intercept memory calls. We're talking pretty sophisticated rootkits here, but ultimately, they're going to want to run on the most hardware. It makes more sense to use the OS (which already has the facilities to do anything the rootkit could want) and to hide with the MMU.
Every Mac has hardware VM in it. I'm not sure, but I believe it's on by default, too. Just because the OS or user doesn't use it, doesn't mean that rootkits can't.
The way the rootkit works (and this particular MMU in general) is by allowing direct hardware access to the virtualized host. That is, under the rootkit scenario, if Windows makes a call to the video card to do anything (from getting EDIC info to rendering 3d), the MMU passes the request directly to the graphics hardware. Windows still needs to know how to talk to the hardware--because Windows uses a driver to make the call.
Only a few instructions must (by design) be trapped and handled by the MMU. This is why, in theory, you can get better performance out of this than traditional emulation, and it's also why doing it this way is easier than full emulation or instruction translation. Because the "guests" can talk directly to the hardware, all of your devices are theoretically supported, as long as your client OS supports them.
Putting the device driver in the MMU would be interesting, but you really want the MMU to be as lean as possible to maintain performance. If the MMU is intercepting calls to the video card, sound card, network devices, etc, and presenting a generic interface to its clients, you'll lose quite a bit of performance.
My wife just got a new Macbook. I haven't put Windows on it natively, yet, but I did try Parallels. Saying that I felt like I was running native Windows would be an understatement. It was the snappiest "emulation" I've ever seen.
Frankly, I was expecting to be disappointed. Parallels seemed like a lot of hype. Not so! The only drawback is a lack of snapshot support, which I feel is somewhat necessary if you're doing development.
Slashdot Mirror
Try using shift+movementkey or ctrl+movementkey.
Tack on "pacifist" and you've got a real challenge.
I'm glad that people in the open source community don't mind if you do whatever you want with the software you download.
If you actually read the relevant portion of the Vista license instead of listening to all of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric, you'll find that the wording is such that you can run Vista in virtualization--as long as you aren't using the same copy of Vista as both host and guest. This is a departure from XPs license, which did not differentiate, and thus allowed you to run the same copy of XP on as many VMs as you wanted, so long as they were all on the same physical machine (lots of people considered this to be a loophole--looks like Microsoft did, too).
1) Most of these "users" never bought Windows (less than 10% of all PC owners have bought Windows)
That depends on the definition of "bought". People "buy" Windows every day when it comes on their computer from the OEM.
2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Microsoft Windows worth less than $2 an hour.
I don't think this justifies making them buy Vista every time they want to make a substantive change to their computer. There is no reason (other than sheer greed) that a Vista installation shouldn't be transferrable (note: not copyable--transferrable) from one machine to another, much less simple hardware upgrades.
The summary wasn't ambiguous either:
The Gotuit.com free online video player now works for Linux users with the recent Flash 9 beta release.
Note the "with the recent Flash 9 beta release" which implies that Gotuit doesn't work if you don't have the Flash 9 beta release. The requirements are clearly stated.
Then Wine doesn't support Linux either, I guess? Or any piece of Linux software which isn't directly ported to work on evert obscure piece of hardware that Linux supports?
Please, this is pedantry at best and trolling at worst.
Except that I was also talking about more parties and/or more ideas being represented. I know plenty of conservatives that don't really get the party-agenda on homosexuals--they don't care, or better, they see no reason to deny them these rights. However, they don't look at the individual issues and who is supporting them--they just look at the party affiliation and vote thusly.
In many elections (for congress and local seats), there are people running who are either third-party candidates or independants. They tend to differ significantly in idealogy from either of the main party candidates, but they tend to get almost no press because of the broken system. If people sought out these candidates, they might see something there that fits them better than either of the two main parties. But they don't. They're lazy and probably don't even bother voting in the midterms, believing that only the President really matters. I think that in the past few years, we've seen what can happen when the same party controls both the presidency and the congress. I guess for someone who believes everything the Republican party believes (and even that statement is lumping them all together) then this would be ok, but I sincerely believe that most people have at least somewhat differing opinions on some of the issues.
Glad you're trying correspondence. I may suggest writing a snail-mail letter--those sometimes get more attention than that newfangled e-mail....
Everyone draws their lines differently. There are a whole boatload of "intent" laws that make assumptions on what a person intends to do, and punishes them before they're even allowed to try. I would say that willfully inciting violence should probably be punishable, but making an offhanded remark in front of 100 people to the effect that "X minority group should all be hanged" probably shouldn't count--but in some cases, that's enough to get slapped with a charge of incitement.
Hell, all of the people who carried out 9/11 are already dead! Justice is served! Fnord.
64-bit is only supported if the app is compiled against a few specific libraries (I forget which ones). Any other apps will behave as 32-bit. I'm not sure if the next OS X release will change this.
Simply untrue.
TPM can be used as a way to sign binaries from the bootloader all the way through the OS and its libraries. You can, in theory, guarantee that your OS has not been compromised. This can even be done with Linux, though it would make replacing binaries a little more difficult. The tradeoff in security may be worth it to some people.
So yes, TPM can be used for good. You're just assuming that only closed-source vendors would ever possibly use it. Google for Bruce Potter and TPM--he opened my eyes at Defcon on this particular subject.
I use 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen (Dell Precision M70.) I have no problems with it. Font sizes are adjustable, so if I'm having problems reading something, I can just crank it up. I'd rather have the option for better resolution than not. Unfortunately, that'e never been an area where Apple excelled--they tend to cater strictly to the median user.
I'd buy a MBB today if they suddenly released one with 1920x1200, and going to 1680xwhatever on the 15" would really make me consider one.
The machine doesn't seem to be hobbled. The OS won't run on non-Mac hardware, but you can run just about any modern x86 OS on the Macs.
Besides, TPM itself isn't evil; it's only a tool. It can be used for good or evil, just like a hammer, debugger, or decss.
To those who believe we have regressed to a point where the ground rules - the system itself - is illegitimate or is of questionable legitimacy, there is no better means of expressing this determination on the ballot than by abstaining from voting in federal elections or even in all elections. ...
What better way to vote against the system than to join the 45-60% of elligible voters who consistently choose to abstain from voting federal elections?
Except that there is no way to distinguish this from the apathetic populace. Something like 30% of Americans vote in the 'midterm' elections. YOu can't tell me that 70% of the country is trying to make a point by staying home. My guess is that most of them simply don't care, or simply see it as "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."
My goal when I vote (in midterms) is to keep one party from controlling both the congress and the presidency. That's about the only 'check' I feel we can manage in this system.
Yet hopefully your representation at the state or at least local level remains strong. Do not overlook these elections even if you abstain from federal elections.
Actually, I live in Texas. Our state and even local elections are almost as much of a joke as the federal ones.
You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.
You look at the American government through polarized lenses. You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals. Not all Democrats vote along party lines. Nor do all Republicans, yet you're willing to stay home from the elections rather than looking at the issues, who supports what, and making a decision. Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates (their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one).
That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy. It's why They win, every time. It's why our elections are largely for show. It's why, no matter who wins next November, we'll probably be in exactly the same boat.
When you click on the videos, are they available?
Youtube's indexer has never been just super-current. Oftentimes I'd click on a video only to find that it'd been removed due to terms of use violations.
I don't think that Apple letting you see the EULA first is a bad thing--in fact, I said that was the way it should be. See the part you quoted: "The "contract" should be agreed upon before the point of sale, which means that there isn't any need to display it at install time."
But it should be reasonable. I shouldn't have to get online to view the EULA. I shouldn't have to know that there's a EULA attached beforehand. You're coming from the standpoint of someone who knows these things even exist. Lots of people don't--they go to the store, buy a piece of software, and plan on installing it. They don't know the provisions of the EULA. Even if they know there is a EULA (despite being standard on software, there is no NEED for one) they don't know what is contained therein. They don't know what they will have to agree to in order to install the software.
The EULA should be clearly available on the software package. If it's not feasible to put it on the software package, it should be available at checkout before the purchase is completed. If Apple does this, kudos. They're doing the right thing. If they don't, well, then I have to lump them in with all the rest of the software producers/retail outlets.
Look at it this way. Content providers are trying to tell us that when you go to the store, fork over some cash, and take home a box with some software in it, what you're really paying for is a license to use the software. The license--what you can do with it--is spelled out only AFTER you've opened the package, put the CD in your computer, and started the install process. In other words, you have no idea what you're buying when you're in the store. If there was no EULA, this would be different, because copyright still applies (meaning I can't make copies of the software) and what I'm buying is a copy of the software (much like buying a book--you're buying a tangible copy of the product).
Again, my entire beef with this is that the EULA isn't known ahead of time. I have no idea how Apple operates in this regard. I do know that Microsoft's EULA isn't printed on the box, and that Best Buy does not have a copy at the registers.
I believe this is incorrect. Most places in the world have fair trading laws which means they must take back the product, even if they say otherwise in the store. If they don't then that is an issue for the courts. I don't believe that stores are at liberty to say "you can't return that!" in reasonable circumstances.
I'd have to read the laws to know, but I did indicate the existence of these laws in my original post (you conveniently removed that bit). Yes, it may be up to the courts to decide. That would be an interesting legal test.
Maybe I don't have internet access?
I'm normally a big fan of accountability, but in this case, I have to disagree. Most things in the store don't require agreeing to a "contract" with the creator in order to use them, but after you buy them. The "contract" should be agreed upon before the point of sale, which means that there isn't any need to display it at install time.
Also, most stores allow returns on items if you aren't satisfied with them, at least within the first 14 or 30 days (many states have laws regarding this). Yet software is a different story, and what's worse, most stores don't tell you up front that software cannot be returned (usually it's on the receipt, which--surprise surprise, you don't see until the transaction is complete). So I could take the software back before I see the license (which I shouldn't have to get online to view--it should be on the back of the box, if nothing else) or I can open it, read the license, and then decide whether or not I agree to it.
It's really quite a horrible situation--or it would be if anyone ever actually read those things.
That's a fair counter. I can't claim that VMWare isn't good--it is. But to really test it, I'd need to use Bootcamp on my wife's Macbook--something I don't think she's particularly interested in!
I use VMWare daily at my job, too (Linux is the host, though). I only have 1gig of RAM, so that's probably my limiting factor. Nevertheless, it feels more sluggish to me than the Macbook does.
Relative specs: P4-3.2GHZ vs CoreDuo 1.87GHZ, 1gig ram in each machine, slightly faster hard drive on the Linux box. I typically assign 512megs to the virtual host, though if I'm going to be running multiple machines, I'll drop that down a bit.
It still depends on a lot of things. You say:
/what/ the MMU is hiding. For example, current rootkits may hide their processes, may patch netstat to hide sockets, and probably does this through hiding syscalls. A rootkitted MMU could use a the system's drivers and syscalls to do the dirty work, just like a standard rootkit, but could hide attempts to detect the kit by virtue of the fact that it can intercept memory calls. We're talking pretty sophisticated rootkits here, but ultimately, they're going to want to run on the most hardware. It makes more sense to use the OS (which already has the facilities to do anything the rootkit could want) and to hide with the MMU.
If my "cracked" OS has direct access to the NIC, then I can monitor what is sent over it. I can tell if the "Blue Pill" has cracked my box and is calling home.
Maybe, depending on how much and
Every Mac has hardware VM in it. I'm not sure, but I believe it's on by default, too. Just because the OS or user doesn't use it, doesn't mean that rootkits can't.
It's not really that easy.
The way the rootkit works (and this particular MMU in general) is by allowing direct hardware access to the virtualized host. That is, under the rootkit scenario, if Windows makes a call to the video card to do anything (from getting EDIC info to rendering 3d), the MMU passes the request directly to the graphics hardware. Windows still needs to know how to talk to the hardware--because Windows uses a driver to make the call.
Only a few instructions must (by design) be trapped and handled by the MMU. This is why, in theory, you can get better performance out of this than traditional emulation, and it's also why doing it this way is easier than full emulation or instruction translation. Because the "guests" can talk directly to the hardware, all of your devices are theoretically supported, as long as your client OS supports them.
Putting the device driver in the MMU would be interesting, but you really want the MMU to be as lean as possible to maintain performance. If the MMU is intercepting calls to the video card, sound card, network devices, etc, and presenting a generic interface to its clients, you'll lose quite a bit of performance.
My wife just got a new Macbook. I haven't put Windows on it natively, yet, but I did try Parallels. Saying that I felt like I was running native Windows would be an understatement. It was the snappiest "emulation" I've ever seen.
Frankly, I was expecting to be disappointed. Parallels seemed like a lot of hype. Not so! The only drawback is a lack of snapshot support, which I feel is somewhat necessary if you're doing development.