Actually there were periods of times when low end Sparc stations were cheaper than comparable PCs. Sun did try price a few times, I can remember around 2001 / 2002 actually using Sparc / Solaris over x86 / Linux for cost reasons (!).
Well remember Linux was originally Linix (Linus' Minix). Linus came out of the Minix community. I think Tanenbaum can fairly be viewed as a mentor, and it is tough when the student surpasses the teacher. But at this point Minix isn't even comparable to Linux anymore. I think he's delusional to think he is comparable to QNX.
RMS' major contribution arguably has been his wars. Theo is much more of a mixed bag. Andrew missed the bus and is totally unrealistic. Minix is not ready to go up against QNX.
They aren't monopolies. Non monopolies have far fewer restrictions on their actions. What Android, iOS, OSX... do would be absolutely illegal if they were a monopoly.
Actually I'm a good example I'd pay a few bucks for something like paint on the Mac. A simple fast, easy to use drawing program aimed at people who have no interest or skill in art but need to make a small diagram of something.... Perfect for my needs. I miss it. I wouldn't pay a lot for it.
A big part of the problem is that Unix and Unix variants have been designed for security from the beginning.
This is a myth. The guys who invented Unix were working on Multics most of the time, which has better security by far than most OSes today. Unix was developed as a low / minimal security environment for development and experimentation. It was multi user from the beginning and networked earlier. It just had window's problems earlier and with a smaller installed base.
There is what is called the contagion factor in the spread of any virus:
An infected entity comes in contact with N possible persons that it can infect and p% of them are infected, in time g. If you think of N as being how many phones a phone is on the same wifi network with that trade data, and p the percentage jail broken; p is tiny and N isn't even that large.
Capability computing. You don't grant applications the rights of a user. Rather an application is granted the right to do X to thing Y. So getting access to a user's file doesn't mean access to all of them. Some other problem controls granting capabilities.
As an aside the NT kernel 3.51 had an excellent capabilities and Windows still has it. Microsoft just never made their own software, including the shell / GUI work with it.
rootkit dectors for Linux? No. Linux security is much more consistent. As for virus there are have been 0 major Linux virus outbreaks even with 60% server market share.
The problem with Internet Explorer was not the bundling. It was that:
a) Internet Explorer was integrated into things like the shell, rather than separating the browser functionality from the OS functionality. b) Microsoft prohibited other browsers from being installed as the default.
I'd say the appropriate analogy is bundling Windows Media player.
Good point about the FOB and the economics. I should comment though in the early 1990s the arguments regarding encryption were similar and at the time business wasn't terribly interested. It is hard to figure out why business would want plausibly deniable encryption though.
You do have a point. If the software isn't at least semi ubiquitous, and having such software is evidence of guilt....
____
Let me throw one more at you. The hiding of critical information inside other files. Like embedding an encrypted word doc in a movie. That software doesn't exist yet (because CPUs aren't fast enough) but the static versions already exist. And that kind of plausibly deniable encryption could work over the web.
Sure. But there are huge numbers of apps and especially utilities on any computer that don't get used. I would gather than most PCs or Macs loaded with software, i.e. the kinds of computers that would be in question have upward of 30k executables. Even programmers probably only know a small percentage. The point of open source would be to compile this encryption software into dozens or hundreds of other applications widely used.
Further if it were illegal the code itself may night be on the computer but on a FOB, like a USB key.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow when did you start? I started late 94 and got both on CDRom.
Actually there were periods of times when low end Sparc stations were cheaper than comparable PCs. Sun did try price a few times, I can remember around 2001 / 2002 actually using Sparc / Solaris over x86 / Linux for cost reasons (!).
Yes. The original name for Linux was Linix (Linus' Minix).
Minix was years ahead. Minix charged and Tanenbaum controlled the direction. So Linus had to fork his version off.
Well remember Linux was originally Linix (Linus' Minix). Linus came out of the Minix community. I think Tanenbaum can fairly be viewed as a mentor, and it is tough when the student surpasses the teacher. But at this point Minix isn't even comparable to Linux anymore. I think he's delusional to think he is comparable to QNX.
RMS' major contribution arguably has been his wars. Theo is much more of a mixed bag. Andrew missed the bus and is totally unrealistic. Minix is not ready to go up against QNX.
You got it. Something very light, for small jobs.
I'm not following the objection.
App X requests access to thing Y. The OS asks the user what to do.
Poorly mainly because users couldn't grant access more broadly. There were only two options and so users were asked the same question again and again.
That botnet is not a major outbreak. Nor is it even clear it was a virus originally.
I don't see any criticism here. But Apple is not a monopoly in desktop OSes. They aren't subject to the same rules.
They aren't monopolies. Non monopolies have far fewer restrictions on their actions. What Android, iOS, OSX... do would be absolutely illegal if they were a monopoly.
Looking below you are confusing anti-malware (which Snow Leopard does have) with anti-virus which is doesn't have.
Make is harmless. Make installation of non sandboxed apps complex.
What evidence do you have that they have this ability? How would they do this?
Actually I'm a good example I'd pay a few bucks for something like paint on the Mac. A simple fast, easy to use drawing program aimed at people who have no interest or skill in art but need to make a small diagram of something.... Perfect for my needs. I miss it. I wouldn't pay a lot for it.
This is a myth. The guys who invented Unix were working on Multics most of the time, which has better security by far than most OSes today. Unix was developed as a low / minimal security environment for development and experimentation. It was multi user from the beginning and networked earlier. It just had window's problems earlier and with a smaller installed base.
There is what is called the contagion factor in the spread of any virus:
An infected entity comes in contact with N possible persons that it can infect and p% of them are infected, in time g. If you think of N as being how many phones a phone is on the same wifi network with that trade data, and p the percentage jail broken; p is tiny and N isn't even that large.
Agree with most of what you wrote. But two things need to be edited:
You can't have an OS that is secure against viruses, so long as 1) it allows the user to install arbitrary software,
all software comes from a variety of trusted locations with no way to casually circumvent this
IOS is not as unreasonable as rumor has it.
Yep. It goes pretty fast on systems that have it. The application requests access, and the user grants it.
Capability computing. You don't grant applications the rights of a user. Rather an application is granted the right to do X to thing Y. So getting access to a user's file doesn't mean access to all of them. Some other problem controls granting capabilities.
As an aside the NT kernel 3.51 had an excellent capabilities and Windows still has it. Microsoft just never made their own software, including the shell / GUI work with it.
rootkit dectors for Linux? No. Linux security is much more consistent. As for virus there are have been 0 major Linux virus outbreaks even with 60% server market share.
The problem with Internet Explorer was not the bundling. It was that:
a) Internet Explorer was integrated into things like the shell, rather than separating the browser functionality from the OS functionality.
b) Microsoft prohibited other browsers from being installed as the default.
I'd say the appropriate analogy is bundling Windows Media player.
Good point about the FOB and the economics. I should comment though in the early 1990s the arguments regarding encryption were similar and at the time business wasn't terribly interested. It is hard to figure out why business would want plausibly deniable encryption though.
You do have a point. If the software isn't at least semi ubiquitous, and having such software is evidence of guilt....
____
Let me throw one more at you. The hiding of critical information inside other files. Like embedding an encrypted word doc in a movie. That software doesn't exist yet (because CPUs aren't fast enough) but the static versions already exist. And that kind of plausibly deniable encryption could work over the web.
Sure. But there are huge numbers of apps and especially utilities on any computer that don't get used. I would gather than most PCs or Macs loaded with software, i.e. the kinds of computers that would be in question have upward of 30k executables. Even programmers probably only know a small percentage. The point of open source would be to compile this encryption software into dozens or hundreds of other applications widely used.
Further if it were illegal the code itself may night be on the computer but on a FOB, like a USB key.