Is the number of Mac users who have switched to Windows, Linux, or BSD in the same time period.
I do know a couple of people who have bought Apple laptops and run Linux on them. Neither were Mac users who switched to non-Apple UNIX, but had bought Macs because they wanted a better user interface on their existing UNIX tools... and decided that they weren't using the native applications enough to make it worthwhile having a different OS on their laptop and their Linux desktop.
But letr's say there's 100,000 such users (and I would be astonished to discover that many). That would mean that there must be 1.1 million converts in the other direction... not just 1 million.:)
Or does a that's inherently insecure (that is, it's not actually possible to fix the underlying security flaw without changing the design) not count as a bug?
PHP is neither secure nor insecure. Individual applications are secure or insecure. PHP allows insecure applications and doesn't particularly encourage secure applications, nor does it limit the capabilities of secure applications.
There are application environments that are inherently safe... that is, they implement a sandbox that fails closed. Individual applications may be insecure, but if the application's security fails the attacker does not gain any capabilities that can be used to launch further attacks on other systems or other users on the same system.
You're assuming that Longhorn will actually improve the areas of Windows that are making Windows look as bad as anyone with more than a few months experience in the computer industry knows (no matter how much some might deny it, even to themselves) it really is. I don't believe that's possible without abandoning vast chunks of the Win32 API and making most of the nontrivial applications written or updated in the past 7 years incompatible. The rot is really that deep.
It's more efficient! Since the product's already selling for zero dollars with a margin of zip, there's nothing to inflate and there's no bubble to burst! All money can do is distort the normal market forces that operate in the reputation-and-effort-based open-source economy. Maybe that distortion will be temporary and people will talk about an "open source bubble", or maybe it'll be permanent, but it's something that's happening outside the open source community for the main part.
The Intel Powerbooks have to be first, they've gone from being top of the line to average, performance wise, relative to PCs, though their design and build quality is still the best.
I'll take a Thinkpad over a Powerbook any day.
I'd be willing to pay Apple the "Mac Tax" in cash by buying a "portable OSX" for twice the price if I could install it on a Thinkpad.
Dell products are no better than whitebox computers you pick up locally, yet Dell sells way more units.
Dell products are also not significantly more expensive than the white-box computers. That is, the "perceived added value" of the Dell name is a few percent.
If apple was letting others sell apple compatible computers they wouldn't be able to have such a high profit margin.
If Apple was letting others sell Apple-compatible computers, Mac OS X would have to cost $300-$500 instead of $130. See, Apple is really a software company. The added value in the Mac is in the software... people don't buy Macs because they're in shiny boxes, they buy them because they run Apple's software.
Dell does not have any comparable product. There is nothing that Dell adds to a Dell computer that is unique to Dell. That is why Macs are worth more, because the "Mac Tax" subsidises Mac OS X.
Depends on who I am. If I'm Michael Dell, probably the 6.5%. If I'm a stockholder or an employee, who has the same absolute amount of income or stock riding both percentages? I'll take the 9.5% thanks.
All this means is that apple is overcharging for its products.
What it means is that Apple is adding more value to the products between the time they come in the loading dock and the time they go off the shelves. Otherwise people wouldn't be willing to pay those higher prices.
After all, what's Dell's added value? Why would you buy a Dell rather than an HP or a Lenovo or a generic white box? Because it's better? Because you get something with a Dell you don't get with anything else? Can you conceive of anything that would make you willing to pay even 10% more for a Dell than for a comparable HP?
If ANY computer manufacturer is able to charge more for a comparable product than another, then there's something in their product that makes it worth more to the people who are buying it.
I thought it was dependent on GPL libraries, which would make anything linked with it GPL, but it seems that the libraries that I'm thinking of are LGPL now.
Well at least Microsoft is a little more forecoming on its shortcomings and will admit they @#$%^ up.
When? They'll admit to something that sounds good that lets them save face and doesn't actually commit them to doing anything about any real problems. The real mistakes that they've turned into a major part of their core business model? Things that would actually make a real long-term improvement in the security of Windows and in the reliability of the world's information infrastructure? Hell no.
They're still at the "we don't need safety belts" stage. Denial. It's not their fault. Really.
What really sucks though, is boycotting a company you don't buy anything from anyway.
let's see, I have a Sony PDA, two Sony TVs, two Sony VCRs, a Sony DVD player, a Sony CD changer, and several pairs of Sony headphones.
The last ones are going to hurt the most, because I haven't found another company that makes lightweight headphones that don't physically hurt to wear... and I seem to be hard on headphones.
It's legal to rip the CD with other tools without agreeing to the EULA (you have to if you're not running Windows), so don't agree to the EULA in the first place.
Hmmm... you think clicky-clicky is easier than editing text files?
Don't even compare Windows and Linux. Just compare Windows-with-registry with Windows-with-INI-files. Use the command line tools available *on* Windows. It's a hell of a lot easier to find stuff in AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, and WINDOWS\*.INI than to find it in the registry.
Now try it again with UNIX tools, which are designed for such work.
Of course, once you've done that, and you've created an automated GUI tool for doing the job, it's about as easy to do it in either environment... and there's more people writing those tools on Windows because there's more people USING Windows and more need for those kinds of tools.
But, damn, that's not Windows versus UNIX, that's F-Secure versus FSF.
It looks like GNUstep's dependent on some GPL libraries. Would this make apps linked for GNUstep GPL, or would the fact that GNUstep's implementing a non-GPL interface (NeXT/OpenStep or Cocoa) change that?
If GNUstep is to replace KDE or Gnome (which I would dearly love to see happen) the latter interpretation would need to be true.
This is part of what you need if you want to listen to Sony's music legally.
On the one hand, it's perfectly legal for me to play that CD on my laptop without running that software. Even assuming a clickthrough license is valid, I can simply refuse to accept that license, refuse to install the software, and treat it as an ordinary audio CD. If I'm not running Windows on my laptop, in fact, I don't even have an opportunity to use their spyware-enhancer.
On the other hand, even if it WAS a legal requirement, any contract that involves on or the other of the parties performing an illegal act as a requirement for fulfilling that contract is void. There's a reasonable case that this software violates the DMCA and thus the license is invalid.
And you think that is not going to distract the driver?
Well, that depends. If the passenger is in the front seat and has the audio from the movie fed through an external speaker and is waving the display at the driver, hell yes.
If the passenger isn't in the front seat, or if the passenger isn't deliberately drawing attention to what they're watching, no. As you say, "... if I'm driving, I'm really just not going to watch anything than the road and my mirrors. That's pretty much it. I suppose there are kooks out there that think they can drive while watching something...".
Carsickness is a serious driver distraction.
That's as may be, but I don't see the connection with "...kooks out there that think they can drive while watching something...".
If you want encryption in iChat, use a Jabber server.
From what I can tell from the little information available (I'm not running Tiger), all this means is that Apple's supporting Jabber protocol on the.Mac servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the number of Mac users who have switched to Windows, Linux, or BSD in the same time period.
:)
I do know a couple of people who have bought Apple laptops and run Linux on them. Neither were Mac users who switched to non-Apple UNIX, but had bought Macs because they wanted a better user interface on their existing UNIX tools... and decided that they weren't using the native applications enough to make it worthwhile having a different OS on their laptop and their Linux desktop.
But letr's say there's 100,000 such users (and I would be astonished to discover that many). That would mean that there must be 1.1 million converts in the other direction... not just 1 million.
Or does a that's inherently insecure (that is, it's not actually possible to fix the underlying security flaw without changing the design) not count as a bug?
PHP is neither secure nor insecure. Individual applications are secure or insecure. PHP allows insecure applications and doesn't particularly encourage secure applications, nor does it limit the capabilities of secure applications.
There are application environments that are inherently safe... that is, they implement a sandbox that fails closed. Individual applications may be insecure, but if the application's security fails the attacker does not gain any capabilities that can be used to launch further attacks on other systems or other users on the same system.
the exploit requires one of the following ports listening: UDP 7111, UDP 7222.
Why would you have either of these ports listening?
Or do you mean the payload listens on these ports?
You're assuming that Longhorn will actually improve the areas of Windows that are making Windows look as bad as anyone with more than a few months experience in the computer industry knows (no matter how much some might deny it, even to themselves) it really is. I don't believe that's possible without abandoning vast chunks of the Win32 API and making most of the nontrivial applications written or updated in the past 7 years incompatible. The rot is really that deep.
It's more efficient! Since the product's already selling for zero dollars with a margin of zip, there's nothing to inflate and there's no bubble to burst! All money can do is distort the normal market forces that operate in the reputation-and-effort-based open-source economy. Maybe that distortion will be temporary and people will talk about an "open source bubble", or maybe it'll be permanent, but it's something that's happening outside the open source community for the main part.
The Intel Powerbooks have to be first, they've gone from being top of the line to average, performance wise, relative to PCs, though their design and build quality is still the best.
I'll take a Thinkpad over a Powerbook any day.
I'd be willing to pay Apple the "Mac Tax" in cash by buying a "portable OSX" for twice the price if I could install it on a Thinkpad.
Dell products are no better than whitebox computers you pick up locally, yet Dell sells way more units.
Dell products are also not significantly more expensive than the white-box computers. That is, the "perceived added value" of the Dell name is a few percent.
If apple was letting others sell apple compatible computers they wouldn't be able to have such a high profit margin.
If Apple was letting others sell Apple-compatible computers, Mac OS X would have to cost $300-$500 instead of $130. See, Apple is really a software company. The added value in the Mac is in the software... people don't buy Macs because they're in shiny boxes, they buy them because they run Apple's software.
Dell does not have any comparable product. There is nothing that Dell adds to a Dell computer that is unique to Dell. That is why Macs are worth more, because the "Mac Tax" subsidises Mac OS X.
Which would you rather have?
Depends on who I am. If I'm Michael Dell, probably the 6.5%. If I'm a stockholder or an employee, who has the same absolute amount of income or stock riding both percentages? I'll take the 9.5% thanks.
The real question isn't "how well is Apple doing right now?", but "would the stockholders be better off if they'd invested elsewhere?"
Possibly, but they wouldn't have been better off if they'd invested in Dell.
All this means is that apple is overcharging for its products.
What it means is that Apple is adding more value to the products between the time they come in the loading dock and the time they go off the shelves. Otherwise people wouldn't be willing to pay those higher prices.
After all, what's Dell's added value? Why would you buy a Dell rather than an HP or a Lenovo or a generic white box? Because it's better? Because you get something with a Dell you don't get with anything else? Can you conceive of anything that would make you willing to pay even 10% more for a Dell than for a comparable HP?
If ANY computer manufacturer is able to charge more for a comparable product than another, then there's something in their product that makes it worth more to the people who are buying it.
What do you suppose that is?
I thought it was dependent on GPL libraries, which would make anything linked with it GPL, but it seems that the libraries that I'm thinking of are LGPL now.
<emilylatella>nevermind</>
... leaving how much for Oracle? 400M? 300M?
Well at least Microsoft is a little more forecoming on its shortcomings and will admit they @#$%^ up.
When? They'll admit to something that sounds good that lets them save face and doesn't actually commit them to doing anything about any real problems. The real mistakes that they've turned into a major part of their core business model? Things that would actually make a real long-term improvement in the security of Windows and in the reliability of the world's information infrastructure? Hell no.
They're still at the "we don't need safety belts" stage. Denial. It's not their fault. Really.
What really sucks though, is boycotting a company you don't buy anything from anyway.
let's see, I have a Sony PDA, two Sony TVs, two Sony VCRs, a Sony DVD player, a Sony CD changer, and several pairs of Sony headphones.
The last ones are going to hurt the most, because I haven't found another company that makes lightweight headphones that don't physically hurt to wear... and I seem to be hard on headphones.
It's legal to rip the CD with other tools without agreeing to the EULA (you have to if you're not running Windows), so don't agree to the EULA in the first place.
Hmmm... you think clicky-clicky is easier than editing text files?
Don't even compare Windows and Linux. Just compare Windows-with-registry with Windows-with-INI-files. Use the command line tools available *on* Windows. It's a hell of a lot easier to find stuff in AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, and WINDOWS\*.INI than to find it in the registry.
Now try it again with UNIX tools, which are designed for such work.
Of course, once you've done that, and you've created an automated GUI tool for doing the job, it's about as easy to do it in either environment... and there's more people writing those tools on Windows because there's more people USING Windows and more need for those kinds of tools.
But, damn, that's not Windows versus UNIX, that's F-Secure versus FSF.
No, really...
I'm SO goddamn tired of Finder and I SO miss NeXT's file manager...
Question...
It looks like GNUstep's dependent on some GPL libraries. Would this make apps linked for GNUstep GPL, or would the fact that GNUstep's implementing a non-GPL interface (NeXT/OpenStep or Cocoa) change that?
If GNUstep is to replace KDE or Gnome (which I would dearly love to see happen) the latter interpretation would need to be true.
This is part of what you need if you want to listen to Sony's music legally.
On the one hand, it's perfectly legal for me to play that CD on my laptop without running that software. Even assuming a clickthrough license is valid, I can simply refuse to accept that license, refuse to install the software, and treat it as an ordinary audio CD. If I'm not running Windows on my laptop, in fact, I don't even have an opportunity to use their spyware-enhancer.
On the other hand, even if it WAS a legal requirement, any contract that involves on or the other of the parties performing an illegal act as a requirement for fulfilling that contract is void. There's a reasonable case that this software violates the DMCA and thus the license is invalid.
Which takes you back to the first hand.
Ya didn't answer the question.
So how much space is that? How much is actually Oracle?
Google ad running down the side obscuring the text for anyone else?
Yep, and I'm not even using Safari. I just tested it, and it's doing the same thing for Safari 1.3.1 on Panther, on Camino, on Firefox/Mozilla.
Complain to the people who run the site, their HTML is broken... I suspect they only tested it on one version of Internet Explorer, ever.
Errr...
How big is a "preconfigured database image" then?
Or have they pre-loaded these database images with porn or high-quality video of Larry Ellison or something?
How big is it without them?
And you think that is not going to distract the driver?
Well, that depends. If the passenger is in the front seat and has the audio from the movie fed through an external speaker and is waving the display at the driver, hell yes.
If the passenger isn't in the front seat, or if the passenger isn't deliberately drawing attention to what they're watching, no. As you say, "... if I'm driving, I'm really just not going to watch anything than the road and my mirrors. That's pretty much it. I suppose there are kooks out there that think they can drive while watching something...".
Carsickness is a serious driver distraction.
That's as may be, but I don't see the connection with "...kooks out there that think they can drive while watching something...".
If you want encryption in iChat, use a Jabber server.
.Mac servers.
From what I can tell from the little information available (I'm not running Tiger), all this means is that Apple's supporting Jabber protocol on the