Why is the post about getting a new Mac mod'd lower than the post calling a Mac a paperweight. Since when is name calling more useful than earnest commentary?
Wouldn't you need at least shell access to exploit that? All remote logins are disabled by default so wouldn't one have to be in the same room as the machine to exploit? To wit, you could only hack en masse is you were in a very big room with lots of X boxen.
Or am wrong.
Intel is 100% wrong. I have never heard of Apple requiring all non-Apple computers be hidden from veiw when they are putting on the very expensive presentations and making the generous donations to school they have been making for over 20 years. Apple has been the most generous of any computer company in terms of gifts/subsidies to schools. That Intel required that no Macs be seen, and that Harvard (already the most well funded university in the world) complied says nothing good about either of them.
It's not flamebait to say you don't want a Mac. It is flamebait to denegrate Apple products through feigned (giving you some credit here) ignorance. Unless you have been under a rock you know that Apple has made the easy open case a selling point of their G3/G4 line (the iMac, iBook and PB G3 are also very easy to open). If easy to open were the most important criteria then the Mac leads x86 and even the mighty Commodore by a long way (423% faster in the specINT(opencase) benchmark). You are spouting FUD that would make M$ envious. I don't care if you don't want a Mac, just don't use off base inferences as reasoning. -PSM
Obviosly flame-bait. However IBM has released an open MB spec for PPC. There are a few box makers trying to build one. The Mac II (1987) was VERY easy to open. But the new G4 is even easier. It is easier to get to the MB in my iMac than in my generic x86 CrapBox. Glad you like the Commodore 64 so much. I hear they are very popular with children.
Back in the mid nineties when Apple was migrating to PPC and the Taligent venture with IBM was begun (to be orphaned and starved to death), in the days of Pink and Copland, there was talk of IBM buying Apple. IBM had never quite gotten the consumer space and Apple had never quite gotten into the business space; they were considered a beautiful match. The OS's Apple was working on were more geared towards a server and client relationship. With Macs becoming ROMless and Darwin booting accross platforms it would seem no big deal to bring Darwin to IBMs server series (the PPC based ones as well). Though there are some major differences between the G4 Apple uses and the chips IBM, if Darwin can run on x86 I am sure it can run IBM's PPC. Perhaps this (the opening of Darwin) could lead to the begining of the fruits of IBM's relations with Apple from the 90's. Darwin as an alternative *nix-like os for IBM servers? Drive-less iMacs net booting from Big Blue's Big Iron? SOI for everyone?! -PSM
"Congratulations, you've managed to attach emotional significance to a closed-source OS, and it corporate parents." Is it only wrong to attach emotional significance to a closed source OS, or all (and any) OS's? What if I get emotionally attached to Darwin? What about Linux? What is Red Hat trading for today? Is the product of a single corporate parent household less likely to go to college? What other things can qualify someone for the title of "Sad"? Can you post a.pdf of the rules? If a tree falls on the sacred Kernal in the forrest and no one is around to hear it, is it still open source?
Of course M$ is denying anyone from their organization said anything like that. It is just FUD. Macs can only be affected (directly) if they are running VPC or SoftWindows AND use Outlook on the Windoze side AND someone has their email address there AND then have it set so the emu can see the whole Mac drive AND they use dot three extensions AND they get emailed the virus AND they click on it. Of course the root is still Outlook on Windoze.
Even if you tell a person not to execute programs attached to emails that person won't believe you (or likely won't know what you are talking about). They will execute it anyway. Further proof of incompetence come when even after infecting themselves with some thing nasty, they open the attached FIXFORTHELOVEBUGTXT.vbs the next day.
Multiple monitors are VERY old hat. The Mac II could have a maximum of 7 monitors connected at once. This was back in 1986. If there were dual spigot Nubus cards one could have gone higher. With the PCI based Macs one could connect at least 14 monitors (expansion chassis and a bunch of dual (quad?) spigot cards). M$ introduced this a new feature in 1998. Can Linux do this? What is new and interesting about the vendor is that they are marketing this. This has been done for such a long time it is interesting that someone is seeing this as something that is about to take off. Multiple Monitors have been used by professionals for a long time but does this mean that these guys think the concept has a broader appeal? -PSM
Statistically more people use Macintosh than use Linux. Historically and currently the average dollar per hour revenue created by employees using Macs is about 30% than those using Wintel. But what the hell, no one uses Macs, less use Linux, give up the fight and be assimilated. Is that your point?
"put DSL into the lower-end of machines"?
on
WinDSL Coming?
·
· Score: 1
How is it that software DSL modems will be able to be "put into the lower-end of machines". Software modems require more processor power. Currently I have a Performa 578 (68LC040 @ 33mhz) acting as my Web/FTP/Mail server on my DSL line. Sure, its more powerful than a 486, but can it get much lower end that this? (Even if the P578 had PCI slots how would a software modem be able to run in lower-end machines than a hardware modem?
We have been using QTSS on a MacOS X server to stream from a Sorenson Broadcaster running on an iMac. Check it out at www.innerstellar.com. Quicktime Player 4 is required to listen so it means only Mac and Windoze clients for now. I think Darwin Streaming server (part of Apple's public source thing) is available and works on most Linux distros.
Re:When will Red Hat join?
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 1
I agree. Leave LinuxPPC alone. Competition is better. RedHat buying Linux PPC to get into the PPC market sounds a little M$-like to me. If Red Hat sells 80% x86 and 15% PPC then they could just cancel PPC development. Better to have a few PPC only distributors until PPC saturation gets to 40% or more.
Re:suse already on PPC
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 1
As long as it is open source software and the distro comes with a compiler then there should be no real "dillution".
Re:Please answer these questions?
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 1
As far as I know the open PPC board project is going ahead as planned. This would be great for Linux, and hopefully avoid having to boot MacOS and then reboot into Linux (though I think the New World rom Macs aviod this already). The G3 350 iMac is $999 and dropping. There are even rumors abouot a headless iMac for about $600. If there is enough of these non-Apple PPC boards sold Apple may even consider making the slight mods to have MacOS X run on it (or at least allowing tech-heads to make the mods through source changes or Darwin with the ability to let Aqua install on it, it wouldn't cannibalize their consumer sales and would allow Apple to get a foot back into enterpize systems).
Re:Yes! Linux and Macs!
on
SuSE For PPC
·
· Score: 1
It is also possible to control a remote machine through Timbuktu and other like software. Apple Remote access allows dial-up access to a LAN. -PSM
I was under the impression that even the UMA 2 boards had a small amount of on board proprietary rom (512k?) that prevents certain OS developers from supporting the machines.
It seems to me what Apple is doing is putting out some feelers to see if porting X to Intel is worth the effort. There is probably little chance that X will be open sourced but It could be. If they price their boxed precompiled retail version cheap and make the source the only part you can download then they could do it. Probably under a fairly restrictive license, maybe not even technically "open" source. Apple has to do anything it can to get market share. Be's stunt with FreeBe might be a good idea but probabaly not for Apple. They already lose money on the OS (making it up on the hardware), but if they can get more people to pay them a little for the OS and just the OS they could move away from the custom ROMS and to a more open architecture (the ROM is the only part of current Mac's hardware that is really proprietary and the only real impedament to a fully open architecture). It will be interesting to watch and see if IBM's announced CHRP PPC open motherboard spec ever ships as this might be the way to give the geeks like us an open platform to get Darwin running on and try to paste a retail X/Auqa on top.
I think that the real truth of the matter is that end users themselves want to be mindless fools (or they just are and can't help it). Now that computers are in the hands of the POI's (Plain Old Idiots) they are controling the market. POI's don't care about megahertz (unless they have been misled by Intel) or system architecture or adding graphic cards or running three monitors. Most never even add ram. If Apple never built the Mac to appeal to the POI's, if M$ never came out with Windoze the retail computer market would be much much smaller. Would you like it if you had to know a whole lot about how the combustion engine works to make your car go?
Much of the argument about "mainstream" OS's is about the meaning of mainstream. For some, of course the only mainstream is Windoze. I personally dislike the idea that CrapUSA could be the defining factor in "mainstream". Currently there are only two operating systems that have a wide array of retail packaged software, Mac and Windoze. These are also the only main two OS's that developers release for. I have 5 Macs (one dualbooting LinuxPPC) and one x86 box i built (dualboot Windoze98 and RH 6.1, sometimes BeOS as well). There is a definite difference in the ease of use between the different OS's. I have had a great deal of trouble being a newbie to Linux and not coming from a coding background and have met with a lot of Linux-snobery: "you have to go to the termianl and run netcfg" Uh, whats a terminal? So I figured it out and it is not that hard but I find it ironic when Linux is treated as this geek-only sacred text that only the initiated can understand, and yet at the same time Linux users get all upset when they see their OS referred to as not "mainstream". Mainstream to me means for consumers. Market share is one thing but so is ease of use. If most people in America can't figure out how to program their VCR then there isn't much hope for Linux moving outside of the geekrealm (not that it isn't cool as hell).
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the post about getting a new Mac mod'd lower than the post calling a Mac a paperweight. Since when is name calling more useful than earnest commentary?
Wouldn't you need at least shell access to exploit that? All remote logins are disabled by default so wouldn't one have to be in the same room as the machine to exploit? To wit, you could only hack en masse is you were in a very big room with lots of X boxen. Or am wrong.
Intel is 100% wrong. I have never heard of Apple requiring all non-Apple computers be hidden from veiw when they are putting on the very expensive presentations and making the generous donations to school they have been making for over 20 years. Apple has been the most generous of any computer company in terms of gifts/subsidies to schools. That Intel required that no Macs be seen, and that Harvard (already the most well funded university in the world) complied says nothing good about either of them.
It's not flamebait to say you don't want a Mac. It is flamebait to denegrate Apple products through feigned (giving you some credit here) ignorance. Unless you have been under a rock you know that Apple has made the easy open case a selling point of their G3/G4 line (the iMac, iBook and PB G3 are also very easy to open). If easy to open were the most important criteria then the Mac leads x86 and even the mighty Commodore by a long way (423% faster in the specINT(opencase) benchmark). You are spouting FUD that would make M$ envious. I don't care if you don't want a Mac, just don't use off base inferences as reasoning. -PSM
Obviosly flame-bait. However IBM has released an open MB spec for PPC. There are a few box makers trying to build one. The Mac II (1987) was VERY easy to open. But the new G4 is even easier. It is easier to get to the MB in my iMac than in my generic x86 CrapBox. Glad you like the Commodore 64 so much. I hear they are very popular with children.
Back in the mid nineties when Apple was migrating to PPC and the Taligent venture with IBM was begun (to be orphaned and starved to death), in the days of Pink and Copland, there was talk of IBM buying Apple. IBM had never quite gotten the consumer space and Apple had never quite gotten into the business space; they were considered a beautiful match. The OS's Apple was working on were more geared towards a server and client relationship. With Macs becoming ROMless and Darwin booting accross platforms it would seem no big deal to bring Darwin to IBMs server series (the PPC based ones as well). Though there are some major differences between the G4 Apple uses and the chips IBM, if Darwin can run on x86 I am sure it can run IBM's PPC. Perhaps this (the opening of Darwin) could lead to the begining of the fruits of IBM's relations with Apple from the 90's. Darwin as an alternative *nix-like os for IBM servers? Drive-less iMacs net booting from Big Blue's Big Iron? SOI for everyone?! -PSM
"Congratulations, you've managed to attach emotional significance to a closed-source OS, and it corporate parents." Is it only wrong to attach emotional significance to a closed source OS, or all (and any) OS's? What if I get emotionally attached to Darwin? What about Linux? What is Red Hat trading for today? Is the product of a single corporate parent household less likely to go to college? What other things can qualify someone for the title of "Sad"? Can you post a .pdf of the rules? If a tree falls on the sacred Kernal in the forrest and no one is around to hear it, is it still open source?
Of course M$ is denying anyone from their organization said anything like that. It is just FUD. Macs can only be affected (directly) if they are running VPC or SoftWindows AND use Outlook on the Windoze side AND someone has their email address there AND then have it set so the emu can see the whole Mac drive AND they use dot three extensions AND they get emailed the virus AND they click on it. Of course the root is still Outlook on Windoze.
Even if you tell a person not to execute programs attached to emails that person won't believe you (or likely won't know what you are talking about). They will execute it anyway. Further proof of incompetence come when even after infecting themselves with some thing nasty, they open the attached FIXFORTHELOVEBUGTXT.vbs the next day.
Multiple monitors are VERY old hat. The Mac II could have a maximum of 7 monitors connected at once. This was back in 1986. If there were dual spigot Nubus cards one could have gone higher. With the PCI based Macs one could connect at least 14 monitors (expansion chassis and a bunch of dual (quad?) spigot cards). M$ introduced this a new feature in 1998. Can Linux do this? What is new and interesting about the vendor is that they are marketing this. This has been done for such a long time it is interesting that someone is seeing this as something that is about to take off. Multiple Monitors have been used by professionals for a long time but does this mean that these guys think the concept has a broader appeal? -PSM
The virus only hates Windows (and mail servers). It loves my Mac (or at least it does no harm) and I assume it doesn't harm Linux either.
Statistically more people use Macintosh than use Linux. Historically and currently the average dollar per hour revenue created by employees using Macs is about 30% than those using Wintel. But what the hell, no one uses Macs, less use Linux, give up the fight and be assimilated. Is that your point?
No. Buy a two button mouse.
How is it that software DSL modems will be able to be "put into the lower-end of machines". Software modems require more processor power. Currently I have a Performa 578 (68LC040 @ 33mhz) acting as my Web/FTP/Mail server on my DSL line. Sure, its more powerful than a 486, but can it get much lower end that this? (Even if the P578 had PCI slots how would a software modem be able to run in lower-end machines than a hardware modem?
We have been using QTSS on a MacOS X server to stream from a Sorenson Broadcaster running on an iMac. Check it out at www.innerstellar.com. Quicktime Player 4 is required to listen so it means only Mac and Windoze clients for now. I think Darwin Streaming server (part of Apple's public source thing) is available and works on most Linux distros.
I agree. Leave LinuxPPC alone. Competition is better. RedHat buying Linux PPC to get into the PPC market sounds a little M$-like to me. If Red Hat sells 80% x86 and 15% PPC then they could just cancel PPC development. Better to have a few PPC only distributors until PPC saturation gets to 40% or more.
As long as it is open source software and the distro comes with a compiler then there should be no real "dillution".
As far as I know the open PPC board project is going ahead as planned. This would be great for Linux, and hopefully avoid having to boot MacOS and then reboot into Linux (though I think the New World rom Macs aviod this already). The G3 350 iMac is $999 and dropping. There are even rumors abouot a headless iMac for about $600. If there is enough of these non-Apple PPC boards sold Apple may even consider making the slight mods to have MacOS X run on it (or at least allowing tech-heads to make the mods through source changes or Darwin with the ability to let Aqua install on it, it wouldn't cannibalize their consumer sales and would allow Apple to get a foot back into enterpize systems).
It is also possible to control a remote machine through Timbuktu and other like software. Apple Remote access allows dial-up access to a LAN. -PSM
I was under the impression that even the UMA 2 boards had a small amount of on board proprietary rom (512k?) that prevents certain OS developers from supporting the machines.
It seems to me what Apple is doing is putting out some feelers to see if porting X to Intel is worth the effort. There is probably little chance that X will be open sourced but It could be. If they price their boxed precompiled retail version cheap and make the source the only part you can download then they could do it. Probably under a fairly restrictive license, maybe not even technically "open" source. Apple has to do anything it can to get market share. Be's stunt with FreeBe might be a good idea but probabaly not for Apple. They already lose money on the OS (making it up on the hardware), but if they can get more people to pay them a little for the OS and just the OS they could move away from the custom ROMS and to a more open architecture (the ROM is the only part of current Mac's hardware that is really proprietary and the only real impedament to a fully open architecture). It will be interesting to watch and see if IBM's announced CHRP PPC open motherboard spec ever ships as this might be the way to give the geeks like us an open platform to get Darwin running on and try to paste a retail X/Auqa on top.
I think that the real truth of the matter is that end users themselves want to be mindless fools (or they just are and can't help it). Now that computers are in the hands of the POI's (Plain Old Idiots) they are controling the market. POI's don't care about megahertz (unless they have been misled by Intel) or system architecture or adding graphic cards or running three monitors. Most never even add ram. If Apple never built the Mac to appeal to the POI's, if M$ never came out with Windoze the retail computer market would be much much smaller. Would you like it if you had to know a whole lot about how the combustion engine works to make your car go?
Are all teachers and graphic designers mindless? Or just the one at the Apple Death Camps?
Much of the argument about "mainstream" OS's is about the meaning of mainstream. For some, of course the only mainstream is Windoze. I personally dislike the idea that CrapUSA could be the defining factor in "mainstream". Currently there are only two operating systems that have a wide array of retail packaged software, Mac and Windoze. These are also the only main two OS's that developers release for. I have 5 Macs (one dualbooting LinuxPPC) and one x86 box i built (dualboot Windoze98 and RH 6.1, sometimes BeOS as well). There is a definite difference in the ease of use between the different OS's. I have had a great deal of trouble being a newbie to Linux and not coming from a coding background and have met with a lot of Linux-snobery: "you have to go to the termianl and run netcfg" Uh, whats a terminal? So I figured it out and it is not that hard but I find it ironic when Linux is treated as this geek-only sacred text that only the initiated can understand, and yet at the same time Linux users get all upset when they see their OS referred to as not "mainstream". Mainstream to me means for consumers. Market share is one thing but so is ease of use. If most people in America can't figure out how to program their VCR then there isn't much hope for Linux moving outside of the geekrealm (not that it isn't cool as hell).