DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content.
That should read...
"DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing copyrighted content."
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, even if I have no intention of buying DRM-protected content legally, DRM restricts what I can do with my own computer. Any even minimally effective DRM scheme will require draconian restrictions. Hardware that only boots cryptographically signed kernels. Kernels that only load cryptographically signed drivers. Access controls based on cryptographically signed applications. Applications that only use cryptographically signed libraries.
It's possible that for all these stages there will be escapes, so that the various secure components will have a way to relinquish their rights and load insecure content so I can still use a media player to play back the recording I made of a class I gave even if I've had to install a patched driver to fix a problem with my computer... but I wouldn't put money down on it.
And you never know what you will need to run. I mean, there's already public material... recordings of town hall meetings and the like... only distributed in proprietary and undocumented streaming formats.
No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation.
Of all the things you could propose as a reason for considering it "single user", that's the oddest. It's hateful and frustrating, and more prevalent in MS WIndows than X11 or Mac OS, but it's more prevalent in X11 than Mac OS, and more prevalent in Mac OS than 8 1/2.
You could have pointed to the single-application-instance shared with Mac OS (which Firefox has imported to X11). Whether it's services, desktop applications, or just logged in users, it takes a huge effort to have two instances of ANYTHING running in Windows.
Their virtual terminal and user switching required years of development work from Citrix, Xerox, Metaframe, and other companies to figure out what parts of the user environment should be shared, what should be duplicated, and what should be switched from instance to instance... and you still can't have two login sessions under the same user id.
For applications that run as services there's been even less work done to get around the problems... so it's actually more cost effective to build "blade" servers or run multiple copies of the OS in virtual machines than to run multiple webservers or other applications in the same instance of Windows.
I mean, I had a 486/50... this is a machine that wasn't powerful enough to run one instance of even NT 3.51... and I was running multiple webservers on different addresses under the same kernel. This kind of thing is routine and easy in UNIX, because it was designed for multiple users (and thus multiple instances of every possible resource) from the very start.
What are you talking about? I don't know of any 'WINDOW' command.
The console window that cmd.exe uses is not part of cmd.exe, and it's what you use when you run telnet from the command line, and it's a truly horrible and incompatible implementation of an ANSI terminal.
If MacOSX has enough apps that run on it, then Linux/BSD systems certainly go beyond it
Virtually all Linux/BSD open source software in the world runs under Mac OS X. It's a bit more work to get it to run, but you can have the same KDE or Gnome environment on Mac OS X, if that's what you want, that you have on Linux... but if that's what you want, Linux is a better choice.
On top of that it's got 20 years of commercial software. Mac OS had commercial GUI software for it before Windows, and in some areas it is far better quality. If you don't want to run commercial GUI software, then you're better off with something else, but most people do.
And I can, right now, on Mac OS X, run software for OS 9 and OS 8 and even some OS 7 software... with no difficulty. I have yet to find software written for OS X 10.2 (10.1 and earlier can be ignored, there really wasn't any significant amount of OS X software before Jaguar) that won't run on 10.3 or 10.4, or for which free upgrades aren't available.
Accept it or not, I can't help that. All I can do is state facts... I've been writing and working on open source software since the '70s, since long before Linux or even the GPL... and Mac OS X is the best possible platform if you need both commercial and open source software that I can find, and it's clearly a good enough platform for commercial software that it's kept selling... even at a significant premium... to people for whom open source is a closed book.
So Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Adobe whatever, Unreal Tournament, World of Warcraft etc. aren't Mac OS applications
The message I responded to said, flat out, that the poster didn't use Photoshop, and only listed open source applications. What am I expected to assume?
hyperterminal/cmd's telnet in my case
Hyperterminal is completely unrelated to the command line telnet, and the command line is unrelated to the command WINDOW, and the command WINDOW doesn't follow any standards at all.
(more stuff about open source apps)
Like I said, if you want Linux, get Linux, there's a reason more people use Macs as their desktop than use Linux even when Linux is free. But if you're not "most people" more power to you.
A. Apple has already shipped Mac OS X intel on P4 and PIII cores. The OS it's running on (Darwin) has run on AMD.
B. Apple made a lot of their own chips, and have used some very nice and Apple-unique boot firmware. They're now using EFI, and Intel chips where they were using custom ones.
C. BSD and Linux are absolutely around in the "boxed OS market". Apple made a run for it once before but because there was no pool of compatible machines so they had to OEM the OS really cheaply to get people to BUILD them, and ended up cutting into their own market. Today, they could sell generic OS X for more than the Mac-only version and still get sales... enough that they'd be turning more profit than they do selling an actual Mac... so they wouldn't be cannibalising their own sales but opening up the market of people who don't like the Mac hardware but do want the software.
There's a LOT of people like that. The Mac mini opened up one of the markets they were missing out on. A real desktop Mac... as opposed to an all-in-one or the crippled mini... would open up even more sales. But having too many products was one of the things that was hurting them before, and selling a generic version to fill in the edges of the potential market could actually reduce the complexity of the problem, not increase it.
And BSD hasn't "made a run at the PC market"... FreeBSD (which is what you're probably thinking of) is far more a server OS than a desktop one. Unless you want to count Mac OS, in which case it's the most successful desktop UNIX out there.
I found MacOSX inherently poor, for the software I can get on it.
Opensource software I've used on it, that use GTK, just totally mess [...] I'm not buying photoshop to stick on a comptuer that isn't mine to begin with [...] MacOSX's telnet, and the terminal doesn't support ANSI colors [...] forced to buy some rediculessly expensive software just to get ANSI
If you're not actually using any Mac OS applications, yes, I suppose you WILL find it poor. Though if you want familiar Linux xterm behaviour on OS X try running xterm (it comes with X) or whatever other X11-based terminal program you prefer to get the same telnet behaviour you get on Linux. Remember, there's no reason you need to run Terminal to use telnet.
You might actually find that using ssh and X forwarding and running your terminal program remotely works even better for you.
Anyway... have a look at places like Macupdate and Versiontracker to get a better idea of what's actually available for the average user
Making the same mistakes as the iPod isn't the way to beat it.
You step through lists by lightly tapping the pad; you hold down to scroll quickly. The best part is that your thumb doesn't have to move between scrolling and clicking; after scrolling by touching, pushing harder to click -- in exactly the same spot -- does the trick.
In other words, the primary control is a force-sensitive device, which means that it will have to have a "lock" on the control when it's just in your pocket. They might as well give it a touch-screen.
I like having positive action controls on my iPod Shuffle and on my previous non-iPod MP3 player. Give me a music player with a shuffle-style directional pad for the primary controls and a thumbwheel + action button for rapid scrolling and controls, and I'll be all over it. I haven't seen one yet, so I'm sticking with my shuffle.
I gave my daughter my "real" iPod. She likes it fine.
if that was your primary goal, you would have moved to an itanium.
Funny way of spelling "you would have moved to an Alpha 10 years ago".
The fact that not enough people did to convince Compaq to put up a fight with HP to keep it alive is proof that it's not about the 64-bit address space. It will be, some day, but not with today's 32-bit operating systems.
And, yes, even on IA64 Windows-64 is mostly 32-bit,
It's not 64-bit that makes AMD64 fast. It's the extra registers.
Windows 64 is still 32-bit for any Windows application that uses the Windows APIs, all of which still have 32-bit arguments. Win32 is IL32LL64, like all the other 64-bit extended 32-bit operating systems out here.
And that's probably good, because unless you really need 64 bits of address space and word size (and you know if you do, because you're someone like Oracle or NOAA or the NSA) 32-bit is faster unless there's something wrong with the 32-bit instruction set. Like Alpha, where there's no 32-bit mode, or Intel, where the 32-bit ISA is register-starved.
No, they have it working, just on modern 64-bit systems.
On actual usable you-can-compile-and-run-and-don't-need-to-build-a- profile-and profile-your-app-so-the-optimiser-actually-works 64-bit systems like AMD64, or just on IA64?
I have a NeXTstation. NeXTstep on a 68030 isn't anything to write home about either. And the contemporary Windows systems weren't any better.
NeXTstep didn't sell on commodity hardware for the same reason that other operating systems than Windows have never sold well on commodity hardware. People don't buy commodity hardware to run operating systems, they run them to run apps, and there's only two platforms that have enough apps to cut it.
Windows and Mac OS X.
Re:Macs with windows, blah! Windows with Mac OS!
on
No EFI Support for Vista
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I dont understand why everyone is pushing the stories about running windows on macs.
Games. Dual-boot to Windows to run games.
Apple has been a software company since the Mac came out. They're just a software company that makes their money selling hardware, like Cisco. And if they had Cisco's market share they'd be smart to stick with that model. I don't see anyone pushing Cisco to sell IOS for Wintel hardware.
I'm surprised the Origami won't have "instant on"... are you sure about that?
All "instant on" is, is a fancy name for "sleep"... and (as I noted) Windows devices sleep just fine, they just tend to be a bit battery hungry when sleeping because they assume if you're really going down you'll hibernate. If you have an inverter in your car that shoudn't be an issue.
Apple has already put badly thought out "anti-malware" components in OS X, and they have already failed to detect malware and caused more problems from false positives than they prevent. Until there's enough exploits in the wild that the risk of not running anti-malware is clearly higher than the risks of running it it's crazy to run it.
Apple's would be coding this, not symantec or some third party.
I don't care if Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie and the ghost of Alan Turing were coding it, the whole purpose of "anti-malware" code is to detect "suspicious" patterns of activity and block them. It inherently creates a certain amount of false positives, and even the minimal "anti-malware" Apple has already put in OS X has managed to lock me up so I had to ssh in and kill a screen saver that it had decided was doing something suspicious (as noted in the January note above).
Security is about protection, not Convenience.
Security is about defense in depth. Windows has to depend on anti-malware and obtrusive firewall rules because it has so many holes in the system that these "last ditch" defenses are all it can manage. It's possible to design a system that's more convenient and secure by using the right approach.
Of which the only one found in the wild is a social-engineering attack. Anti-malware can't prevent a social-engineering attack (install this, unpack this and run that, trust us). It can't prevent DRM software being installed even if that DRM software is doing dangerous things, because that's what DRM software is all about (and I've got a fine selection of rants about that if you'd like to hear them)...
Take a playing card, and try to draw a small network schema on it. Draw out a small web app flow chart. Draw a hypothetical database schema for a small app. There simply isn't enough room.
OK, so you need a laptop. Going from a playing-card to a 3x5 card isn't going to do the trick.
Don't boot it, just sleep it, and keep it on AC in your car. Or if Windows does't sleep well enough for you (it does for me, honestly) get an iBook or something that's designed to sleep instead of hibernate. There's no reason a laptop can't be just as "instant on" as a tablet PC or a this thing... and a tablet PC or a laptop really IS big enough to draw on.
Apple could easily integrate an Anti-Malware system in OSX and it would... do nothing but reduce the reliability and convenience of the system. Until there's actual malware to look for, there's nothing for it to detect, because there's nothing that malware can do that isn't already done by some existing program. It's all pattern matching, just like antivirus.
There are, IMO, zero fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP (or stock Linux) when it comes to the potential for local or remote vulnerabilities.
There are two fundamental differences between the two.
First... the design flaws in the way Internet Explorer and other applications using the HTML control use ActiveX are fundamental and fundamentally unfixable in Windows without a complete redesign of the API. Even if you ban IE and Outlook and Windows Media Player and Realplayer and other applications that use the HTML control to render untrusted content, you can't remove the control itself without crippling the system, so there's always the chance that some third party application will bring it back to life.
Second... Services (daemons) on UNIX-based systems are easily wrapped and bound to specific ports. A UNIX system can be configured to be completely secure from remote attacks without a firewall, so adding a firewall becomes a "belt and suspenders" extra layer of security. It's effectively impossible to do his on Windows, so the firewall instead of being an extra layer of protection in front of the services becomes the only protection.
That's two. There's more than that, but those are the biggies.
There has been a long-standing design flaw in Safari and Mail as long as they have existed. The problem is that there's a single database, "LaunchServices", for use by applications working with local files and by applications working with untrustable documents. To fix this Apple has been trying to come up with a clever scheme to make double-clicking like a crackhead monkey on any random icon in your download directory "safe". Instead, they need to come up with a separate database (a "WebServices" database) for applications that are designed to handle unsafe files, and let Safari and Mail and third-party software use that.
Because "Open Safe Files After Download" implies that there are some file types that are safe and some file types that are unsafe. that's not true... in the real world there are applications that are safe to use to open untrusted files, and ones that aren't... and most aren't.
Electronic voting systems haven't been around long enough to be called "traditional".
Traditional voting systems put up with the delays of moving physical ballots around and counting them by hand because the process is too important to be defined by the desire of TV networks to sell advertising on election night.
We'd be better off enacting a one week news blackout on election results than going to ANY kind of electronic voting system, even one that retained the essential primacy of the paper ballot.
I mean, really. You have local root exploits on OS X. I'm not surprised, when you have companies like Adobe shipping apps containing setuid root shell scripts. Suppose you set them up with an Interix or Cygwin ssh login on Windows, how long would it take to deface IIS? Or would you even bother calling that an "exploit"?
If you need to give potentially hostile users shell, you want them in a FreeBSD jail at a minimum.
You're comparing a single, which has all the physical overhead of an album, with a digital download that has no overhead. You're comparing prices 25 years ago with prices today... there's been a massive reduction in the price of anything that can be digitised.
25 years ago a videodisc of Star Wars would have cost at least $35.00... that's typical for a single-disc release. Allowing for inflation that's what, $70? Today you can get that on DVD for $20. And a DVD of the top grossing film for 2004 (Shrek 2) is less than that.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing illegal copyrighted content.
That should read...
"DRM is irrelevent to those who don't possess or have any intention of possessing copyrighted content."
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, even if I have no intention of buying DRM-protected content legally, DRM restricts what I can do with my own computer. Any even minimally effective DRM scheme will require draconian restrictions. Hardware that only boots cryptographically signed kernels. Kernels that only load cryptographically signed drivers. Access controls based on cryptographically signed applications. Applications that only use cryptographically signed libraries.
It's possible that for all these stages there will be escapes, so that the various secure components will have a way to relinquish their rights and load insecure content so I can still use a media player to play back the recording I made of a class I gave even if I've had to install a patched driver to fix a problem with my computer... but I wouldn't put money down on it.
And you never know what you will need to run. I mean, there's already public material... recordings of town hall meetings and the like... only distributed in proprietary and undocumented streaming formats.
No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation.
Of all the things you could propose as a reason for considering it "single user", that's the oddest. It's hateful and frustrating, and more prevalent in MS WIndows than X11 or Mac OS, but it's more prevalent in X11 than Mac OS, and more prevalent in Mac OS than 8 1/2.
You could have pointed to the single-application-instance shared with Mac OS (which Firefox has imported to X11). Whether it's services, desktop applications, or just logged in users, it takes a huge effort to have two instances of ANYTHING running in Windows.
Their virtual terminal and user switching required years of development work from Citrix, Xerox, Metaframe, and other companies to figure out what parts of the user environment should be shared, what should be duplicated, and what should be switched from instance to instance... and you still can't have two login sessions under the same user id.
For applications that run as services there's been even less work done to get around the problems... so it's actually more cost effective to build "blade" servers or run multiple copies of the OS in virtual machines than to run multiple webservers or other applications in the same instance of Windows.
I mean, I had a 486/50... this is a machine that wasn't powerful enough to run one instance of even NT 3.51... and I was running multiple webservers on different addresses under the same kernel. This kind of thing is routine and easy in UNIX, because it was designed for multiple users (and thus multiple instances of every possible resource) from the very start.
What are you talking about? I don't know of any 'WINDOW' command.
The console window that cmd.exe uses is not part of cmd.exe, and it's what you use when you run telnet from the command line, and it's a truly horrible and incompatible implementation of an ANSI terminal.
If MacOSX has enough apps that run on it, then Linux/BSD systems certainly go beyond it
Virtually all Linux/BSD open source software in the world runs under Mac OS X. It's a bit more work to get it to run, but you can have the same KDE or Gnome environment on Mac OS X, if that's what you want, that you have on Linux... but if that's what you want, Linux is a better choice.
On top of that it's got 20 years of commercial software. Mac OS had commercial GUI software for it before Windows, and in some areas it is far better quality. If you don't want to run commercial GUI software, then you're better off with something else, but most people do.
And I can, right now, on Mac OS X, run software for OS 9 and OS 8 and even some OS 7 software... with no difficulty. I have yet to find software written for OS X 10.2 (10.1 and earlier can be ignored, there really wasn't any significant amount of OS X software before Jaguar) that won't run on 10.3 or 10.4, or for which free upgrades aren't available.
Accept it or not, I can't help that. All I can do is state facts... I've been writing and working on open source software since the '70s, since long before Linux or even the GPL... and Mac OS X is the best possible platform if you need both commercial and open source software that I can find, and it's clearly a good enough platform for commercial software that it's kept selling... even at a significant premium... to people for whom open source is a closed book.
So Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Adobe whatever, Unreal Tournament, World of Warcraft etc. aren't Mac OS applications
The message I responded to said, flat out, that the poster didn't use Photoshop, and only listed open source applications. What am I expected to assume?
hyperterminal/cmd's telnet in my case
Hyperterminal is completely unrelated to the command line telnet, and the command line is unrelated to the command WINDOW, and the command WINDOW doesn't follow any standards at all.
(more stuff about open source apps)
Like I said, if you want Linux, get Linux, there's a reason more people use Macs as their desktop than use Linux even when Linux is free. But if you're not "most people" more power to you.
A. Apple has already shipped Mac OS X intel on P4 and PIII cores. The OS it's running on (Darwin) has run on AMD.
B. Apple made a lot of their own chips, and have used some very nice and Apple-unique boot firmware. They're now using EFI, and Intel chips where they were using custom ones.
C. BSD and Linux are absolutely around in the "boxed OS market". Apple made a run for it once before but because there was no pool of compatible machines so they had to OEM the OS really cheaply to get people to BUILD them, and ended up cutting into their own market. Today, they could sell generic OS X for more than the Mac-only version and still get sales... enough that they'd be turning more profit than they do selling an actual Mac... so they wouldn't be cannibalising their own sales but opening up the market of people who don't like the Mac hardware but do want the software.
There's a LOT of people like that. The Mac mini opened up one of the markets they were missing out on. A real desktop Mac... as opposed to an all-in-one or the crippled mini... would open up even more sales. But having too many products was one of the things that was hurting them before, and selling a generic version to fill in the edges of the potential market could actually reduce the complexity of the problem, not increase it.
And BSD hasn't "made a run at the PC market"... FreeBSD (which is what you're probably thinking of) is far more a server OS than a desktop one. Unless you want to count Mac OS, in which case it's the most successful desktop UNIX out there.
I found MacOSX inherently poor, for the software I can get on it.
Opensource software I've used on it, that use GTK, just totally mess [...] I'm not buying photoshop to stick on a comptuer that isn't mine to begin with [...] MacOSX's telnet, and the terminal doesn't support ANSI colors [...] forced to buy some rediculessly expensive software just to get ANSI
If you're not actually using any Mac OS applications, yes, I suppose you WILL find it poor. Though if you want familiar Linux xterm behaviour on OS X try running xterm (it comes with X) or whatever other X11-based terminal program you prefer to get the same telnet behaviour you get on Linux. Remember, there's no reason you need to run Terminal to use telnet.
You might actually find that using ssh and X forwarding and running your terminal program remotely works even better for you.
Anyway... have a look at places like Macupdate and Versiontracker to get a better idea of what's actually available for the average user
Making the same mistakes as the iPod isn't the way to beat it.
You step through lists by lightly tapping the pad; you hold down to scroll quickly. The best part is that your thumb doesn't have to move between scrolling and clicking; after scrolling by touching, pushing harder to click -- in exactly the same spot -- does the trick.
In other words, the primary control is a force-sensitive device, which means that it will have to have a "lock" on the control when it's just in your pocket. They might as well give it a touch-screen.
I like having positive action controls on my iPod Shuffle and on my previous non-iPod MP3 player. Give me a music player with a shuffle-style directional pad for the primary controls and a thumbwheel + action button for rapid scrolling and controls, and I'll be all over it. I haven't seen one yet, so I'm sticking with my shuffle.
I gave my daughter my "real" iPod. She likes it fine.
if that was your primary goal, you would have moved to an itanium.
Funny way of spelling "you would have moved to an Alpha 10 years ago".
The fact that not enough people did to convince Compaq to put up a fight with HP to keep it alive is proof that it's not about the 64-bit address space. It will be, some day, but not with today's 32-bit operating systems.
And, yes, even on IA64 Windows-64 is mostly 32-bit,
It's not 64-bit that makes AMD64 fast. It's the extra registers.
A modern PC is 64-bit, running a 32-bit OS.
Windows 64 is still 32-bit for any Windows application that uses the Windows APIs, all of which still have 32-bit arguments. Win32 is IL32LL64, like all the other 64-bit extended 32-bit operating systems out here.
And that's probably good, because unless you really need 64 bits of address space and word size (and you know if you do, because you're someone like Oracle or NOAA or the NSA) 32-bit is faster unless there's something wrong with the 32-bit instruction set. Like Alpha, where there's no 32-bit mode, or Intel, where the 32-bit ISA is register-starved.
No, they have it working, just on modern 64-bit systems.
- profile-and profile-your-app-so-the-optimiser-actually-works 64-bit systems like AMD64, or just on IA64?
On actual usable you-can-compile-and-run-and-don't-need-to-build-a
I have a NeXTstation. NeXTstep on a 68030 isn't anything to write home about either. And the contemporary Windows systems weren't any better.
NeXTstep didn't sell on commodity hardware for the same reason that other operating systems than Windows have never sold well on commodity hardware. People don't buy commodity hardware to run operating systems, they run them to run apps, and there's only two platforms that have enough apps to cut it.
Windows and Mac OS X.
I dont understand why everyone is pushing the stories about running windows on macs.
Games. Dual-boot to Windows to run games.
Apple has been a software company since the Mac came out. They're just a software company that makes their money selling hardware, like Cisco. And if they had Cisco's market share they'd be smart to stick with that model. I don't see anyone pushing Cisco to sell IOS for Wintel hardware.
Since they don't, though...
I'm surprised the Origami won't have "instant on" ... are you sure about that?
All "instant on" is, is a fancy name for "sleep"... and (as I noted) Windows devices sleep just fine, they just tend to be a bit battery hungry when sleeping because they assume if you're really going down you'll hibernate. If you have an inverter in your car that shoudn't be an issue.
Or get an iBook. 12" iBook is $1000...
Apple has already put badly thought out "anti-malware" components in OS X, and they have already failed to detect malware and caused more problems from false positives than they prevent. Until there's enough exploits in the wild that the risk of not running anti-malware is clearly higher than the risks of running it it's crazy to run it.
And that's where we've been at for two years. I brought this up in MAY 2004, June 2004 and January 2005, and in May 2005, as well as numerous times since then.
Apple's would be coding this, not symantec or some third party.
I don't care if Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie and the ghost of Alan Turing were coding it, the whole purpose of "anti-malware" code is to detect "suspicious" patterns of activity and block them. It inherently creates a certain amount of false positives, and even the minimal "anti-malware" Apple has already put in OS X has managed to lock me up so I had to ssh in and kill a screen saver that it had decided was doing something suspicious (as noted in the January note above).
Security is about protection, not Convenience.
Security is about defense in depth. Windows has to depend on anti-malware and obtrusive firewall rules because it has so many holes in the system that these "last ditch" defenses are all it can manage. It's possible to design a system that's more convenient and secure by using the right approach.
Such as what's listed at http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/malspyware.html?
Of which the only one found in the wild is a social-engineering attack. Anti-malware can't prevent a social-engineering attack (install this, unpack this and run that, trust us). It can't prevent DRM software being installed even if that DRM software is doing dangerous things, because that's what DRM software is all about (and I've got a fine selection of rants about that if you'd like to hear them)...
Take a playing card, and try to draw a small network schema on it. Draw out a small web app flow chart. Draw a hypothetical database schema for a small app. There simply isn't enough room.
OK, so you need a laptop. Going from a playing-card to a 3x5 card isn't going to do the trick.
Don't boot it, just sleep it, and keep it on AC in your car. Or if Windows does't sleep well enough for you (it does for me, honestly) get an iBook or something that's designed to sleep instead of hibernate. There's no reason a laptop can't be just as "instant on" as a tablet PC or a this thing... and a tablet PC or a laptop really IS big enough to draw on.
It took me 5 minutes from the very first time I sat down in front of an NT system until I was running CMD as SYSTEM.
The default local permissions haven't been improved since then.
Apple could easily integrate an Anti-Malware system in OSX and it would ... do nothing but reduce the reliability and convenience of the system. Until there's actual malware to look for, there's nothing for it to detect, because there's nothing that malware can do that isn't already done by some existing program. It's all pattern matching, just like antivirus.
There are, IMO, zero fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP (or stock Linux) when it comes to the potential for local or remote vulnerabilities.
There are two fundamental differences between the two.
First... the design flaws in the way Internet Explorer and other applications using the HTML control use ActiveX are fundamental and fundamentally unfixable in Windows without a complete redesign of the API. Even if you ban IE and Outlook and Windows Media Player and Realplayer and other applications that use the HTML control to render untrusted content, you can't remove the control itself without crippling the system, so there's always the chance that some third party application will bring it back to life.
Second... Services (daemons) on UNIX-based systems are easily wrapped and bound to specific ports. A UNIX system can be configured to be completely secure from remote attacks without a firewall, so adding a firewall becomes a "belt and suspenders" extra layer of security. It's effectively impossible to do his on Windows, so the firewall instead of being an extra layer of protection in front of the services becomes the only protection.
That's two. There's more than that, but those are the biggies.
There has been a long-standing design flaw in Safari and Mail as long as they have existed. The problem is that there's a single database, "LaunchServices", for use by applications working with local files and by applications working with untrustable documents. To fix this Apple has been trying to come up with a clever scheme to make double-clicking like a crackhead monkey on any random icon in your download directory "safe". Instead, they need to come up with a separate database (a "WebServices" database) for applications that are designed to handle unsafe files, and let Safari and Mail and third-party software use that.
Because "Open Safe Files After Download" implies that there are some file types that are safe and some file types that are unsafe. that's not true... in the real world there are applications that are safe to use to open untrusted files, and ones that aren't... and most aren't.
How exactly does a PDA fall down in your application?
Electronic voting systems haven't been around long enough to be called "traditional".
Traditional voting systems put up with the delays of moving physical ballots around and counting them by hand because the process is too important to be defined by the desire of TV networks to sell advertising on election night.
We'd be better off enacting a one week news blackout on election results than going to ANY kind of electronic voting system, even one that retained the essential primacy of the paper ballot.
I mean, really. You have local root exploits on OS X. I'm not surprised, when you have companies like Adobe shipping apps containing setuid root shell scripts. Suppose you set them up with an Interix or Cygwin ssh login on Windows, how long would it take to deface IIS? Or would you even bother calling that an "exploit"?
If you need to give potentially hostile users shell, you want them in a FreeBSD jail at a minimum.
You're comparing a single, which has all the physical overhead of an album, with a digital download that has no overhead. You're comparing prices 25 years ago with prices today ... there's been a massive reduction in the price of anything that can be digitised.
25 years ago a videodisc of Star Wars would have cost at least $35.00... that's typical for a single-disc release. Allowing for inflation that's what, $70? Today you can get that on DVD for $20. And a DVD of the top grossing film for 2004 (Shrek 2) is less than that.
$0.99 isn't "cheap".
Did Apple "hype" it at all?
Or did CNET and the other Apple-razzi overhype it?
You can buy bootlegs real cheap... that doesn't mean it's legit to sell them for that price, or allofmp3 to sell for even a higher price.
If they're not bootlegs he's talking about, then I'd like to see some evidence.