Firefox shares the same code base as Mozilla, but is rewritten without the non-browser stuff to make it faster. Likely Minimo is also written without the extra junk (who needs Composer on their cell phone?) already, so basing it on Firefox would probably not make any of the kind of differences you're talking about.
For every applicant who peeked, there are 100 others who would have peeked but just didn't know about it. I think that if Harvard wants to filter applicants for ethical consideration that is great, but it should be built into the application process so that all applicants are tested for ethics, not just the few who happen across a website.
Such an OS is a good idea as long as it includes a filter installed on this OS so that when I am surfing for porn I don't waste time because my search terms accidentally made me land on a site with stock quotes, sports statistics, technology news, and other useless crap.
The Slashdot FAQ actually recommends posting early in a discussion in order to attempt to boost karma:
# Post Early: If an article has over a certain number of posts on it already, yours is less likely to be moderated. This is less likely both statistically (there are more to choose from) and due to positioning (as a moderator I have to actually find your post waaay at the end of a long list.)
Have you forgotten that all of the darwin code is available? Even if what you say was true about Apple and FreeBSD, just what exactly is your objection? You're complaining that the patches they submit back to FreeBSD are not properly documented? Or that they maintain their own private fork of the stuff they're actively working on? The BSD license is pretty clear that there is no obligation to submit patches at all! And there's a hell of a lot of undocumented code in the open source world; singling out Apple as a bad citizen in this regard is hypocritical. The BSD license does not require them to release any code at all, and it certainly does not require documentation, yet you want to complain about the code they did release?
Disclaimer - I'm not a coder, and I don't work on BSD, but the above seems obvious enough to me without such expertise.
And how is MS using Apple to attack Linux by saying OS X is a better Unix than Linux? I've seen a variety of individuals say something to this effect, but I've never really seen it as an official company line from either MS or Apple.
And even if they did have such a statement, it would be ludicrous. You really want Microsoft to tell us which is the better UNIX? Would anyone even take that seriously?
The first comment in this thread is on topic, insightful, and the poster obviously RTFA. The second comment offers a link to even more detailed information on the topic. Is this really slashdot or did I visit the wrong site?
You've been reading too much of John Markoff (the NYT reporter I mentioned). I didn't say he was an angel, that he didn't commit malicious crimes, nor did I say he helped improve system security. You're right he was a cracker, but he was also a hacker (the latter does not mean "white hat" or "someone who helps improve systems" but rather someone who thinks of innovative ways to use the technology available in ways it wasn't intended to be used). As for the mean-spirited approach to catching him, the fact is that Shimomura was pissed because Mitnick had broken into his home computer. They charged him with all kinds of stuff he didn't do (on top of the stuff he did do), and you even famously had companies claiming millions of dollars in losses at trial that they somehow forgot to report to their own stockholders (the SEC is pretty clear that such losses must be reported, for obvious reasons). As well as one company claiming that Mitnick stole millions of dollars in software -- the same software they released for free on the web. As for keeping him in prison, he served his time, and it's clear he has not gone back to his malicious anti-social ways. And even Shimomura admitted that jail was an "inelegant solution to the problem of Kevin Mitnick."
He was considered an outstanding hacker before he got caught. They wouldn't have gone after him as mean-spiritedly as they did if he had not hacked circles around the people after him. An undercover agent (who happened to be bald) that was after him found that his private phone numbers had been switched with the number for the hair club for men. Mitnick was a juvenile prankster, but his hacking skills were legendary, and his pranks pissed off a lot of people who ended up wanting to throw the book at him.
And when his archrival finally caught him it was only with the help of the FBI, the ISP he had been hacking, and a New York Times reporter who consistently exaggerated Mitnick's crimes and turned him into a symbol of America's fear of technology. His getting caught certainly made him even more of an icon -- especially since they went after him so viciously -- but his success as a hacker did not stem from being caught, as you say.
I don't agree that the government should be using their disposition (and probably deep municipal bandwidth discounts) to remove potential income from private industry.
"Remove potential income"? Do you work for the RIAA? Potential income can't be "removed" because it doesn't exist. And there's not a single thing in the world the government (or anyone) could do that could not be defined by someone else as "removing" their potential income.
How's this: I don't agree with the idea that private industry should be using its disposition (and probably deep tax breaks and overpriced contracts with government organizations) to remove potential services from the public. Now do you see what's wrong with your statement?
One of the higherups where I work sent an email a couple months ago out complaining about this or that vulnerability in IE. He finished the email with "I guess that's just one more reason I should be using Netscape." Not Mozilla, not Firefox, but Netscape. Switching to Netscape is something I told him to do. In 1995. Ten years later, not only hasn't he switched yet, but he still thinks the only choice is between IE and Nutscrape. I don't think most computer users pay that much attention to new software (though Firefox and Mozilla are hardly new) nor to the technical aspects of software (the claim that Firefox and Netscape are both based on Mozilla will be met with a blank stare, followed by, "so I should use Netscape, and I'll be secure, right?" (and then followed by continued use of IE, because finding and downloading a new browser is still too much to deal with).
All the formatting is screwed up. The quotes are totally unreadable. She has absolutely no clue how to fix it, and is stressing about whether the college will get it correctly. That's the world you live in when you buy a Mac -- incompatibility with the most basic things.
Sure. And I bet it takes her forever to copy a 17M file....
The advertisers don't care how many dupes there are, as long as people keep coming to the site and presumably looking at the ads. As long as slashdot keeps getting hundreds of thousands of hits, the site is living up to its responsibility to the advertisers. As for the subscribers, that's a different issue, but the only thing they are paying for is to not see the ads (and to read the dupes a few minutes before the rest of us), so if slashdot loses subscribers as a result of dupes, that may mean even more people seeing the ads, which is even better for the advertisers.
So, you see, this is all part of some clever strategy....
Check out LMF and MP4 before you diss Chinese pop. Yeah a lot of pop is cheesy but if you want to hear some great rapping in Cantonese (with terrific production and phat beats), Hong Kong is where it's at. (While you're at it, pick up something from the Korean band Drunken Tiger). Word! I mean, wai!
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox shares the same code base as Mozilla, but is rewritten without the non-browser stuff to make it faster. Likely Minimo is also written without the extra junk (who needs Composer on their cell phone?) already, so basing it on Firefox would probably not make any of the kind of differences you're talking about.
For every applicant who peeked, there are 100 others who would have peeked but just didn't know about it. I think that if Harvard wants to filter applicants for ethical consideration that is great, but it should be built into the application process so that all applicants are tested for ethics, not just the few who happen across a website.
Linkie.
stop going to the gym.
Finding women is easy! Talking to them is the tricky part.
Such an OS is a good idea as long as it includes a filter installed on this OS so that when I am surfing for porn I don't waste time because my search terms accidentally made me land on a site with stock quotes, sports statistics, technology news, and other useless crap.
# Post Early: If an article has over a certain number of posts on it already, yours is less likely to be moderated. This is less likely both statistically (there are more to choose from) and due to positioning (as a moderator I have to actually find your post waaay at the end of a long list.)
Huh? Looked to me like it was about modifying the tapes. Not that I read it or anything...
The article was posted yesterday.
Disclaimer - I'm not a coder, and I don't work on BSD, but the above seems obvious enough to me without such expertise.
And even if they did have such a statement, it would be ludicrous. You really want Microsoft to tell us which is the better UNIX? Would anyone even take that seriously?
So what you're saying is, 2 people got modded up for saying the exact same thing. Now your post makes it three.
Oh, what the hell. There's no market share!! Give me my mod points!!
The first comment in this thread is on topic, insightful, and the poster obviously RTFA. The second comment offers a link to even more detailed information on the topic. Is this really slashdot or did I visit the wrong site?
You've been reading too much of John Markoff (the NYT reporter I mentioned). I didn't say he was an angel, that he didn't commit malicious crimes, nor did I say he helped improve system security. You're right he was a cracker, but he was also a hacker (the latter does not mean "white hat" or "someone who helps improve systems" but rather someone who thinks of innovative ways to use the technology available in ways it wasn't intended to be used). As for the mean-spirited approach to catching him, the fact is that Shimomura was pissed because Mitnick had broken into his home computer. They charged him with all kinds of stuff he didn't do (on top of the stuff he did do), and you even famously had companies claiming millions of dollars in losses at trial that they somehow forgot to report to their own stockholders (the SEC is pretty clear that such losses must be reported, for obvious reasons). As well as one company claiming that Mitnick stole millions of dollars in software -- the same software they released for free on the web. As for keeping him in prison, he served his time, and it's clear he has not gone back to his malicious anti-social ways. And even Shimomura admitted that jail was an "inelegant solution to the problem of Kevin Mitnick."
And when his archrival finally caught him it was only with the help of the FBI, the ISP he had been hacking, and a New York Times reporter who consistently exaggerated Mitnick's crimes and turned him into a symbol of America's fear of technology. His getting caught certainly made him even more of an icon -- especially since they went after him so viciously -- but his success as a hacker did not stem from being caught, as you say.
"Remove potential income"? Do you work for the RIAA? Potential income can't be "removed" because it doesn't exist. And there's not a single thing in the world the government (or anyone) could do that could not be defined by someone else as "removing" their potential income.
How's this: I don't agree with the idea that private industry should be using its disposition (and probably deep tax breaks and overpriced contracts with government organizations) to remove potential services from the public. Now do you see what's wrong with your statement?
Thanks for spoiling my fun.
Yes, but look at the default Desktop background.
The limit is the sky.
One of the higherups where I work sent an email a couple months ago out complaining about this or that vulnerability in IE. He finished the email with "I guess that's just one more reason I should be using Netscape." Not Mozilla, not Firefox, but Netscape. Switching to Netscape is something I told him to do. In 1995. Ten years later, not only hasn't he switched yet, but he still thinks the only choice is between IE and Nutscrape. I don't think most computer users pay that much attention to new software (though Firefox and Mozilla are hardly new) nor to the technical aspects of software (the claim that Firefox and Netscape are both based on Mozilla will be met with a blank stare, followed by, "so I should use Netscape, and I'll be secure, right?" (and then followed by continued use of IE, because finding and downloading a new browser is still too much to deal with).
If it is truly standards compliant, probably not.
Sure. And I bet it takes her forever to copy a 17M file....
They didn't get too small until the Mini came out a couple months ago.
So, you see, this is all part of some clever strategy....
is to destroy the heart. I hear it's in the back, by the TVs.
Check out LMF and MP4 before you diss Chinese pop. Yeah a lot of pop is cheesy but if you want to hear some great rapping in Cantonese (with terrific production and phat beats), Hong Kong is where it's at. (While you're at it, pick up something from the Korean band Drunken Tiger). Word! I mean, wai!