Yup, reminds me of the pen story from NASA. Apparently, NASA used some really complicated engineering to make a pen that would write in 0 gravity situations. Invested millions of dollars into it.
Russia, on the other hand, used pencils.
Great story, but it's completely wrong.
Both US and Russia originally used pencils, with the result that their spacecraft ended up full of flammable shavings and conductive graphite dust that caused all sorts of electrical problems, and after the Apollo 1 fire NASA put out a call for a writing instrument that: would work in zero gravity; wasn't flammable even in an oxygen athmosphere; and survived vacuum and extremes of heat and cold.
A private company (Fisher, I believe) ended up doing the development work and selling it... and made a mint on the "Space Pen" that could write at any angle.
The Russians ended up buying the Space Pen from Fisher just like NASA did.
These days most cheap ballpoints have enough pressure in the ink reservoir that they work fine in orbit... because being able to "write at any angle" is useful down here on Earth as well. I don't think I'd want to expose them to vacuum though, not after having a shirt ruined by a ballpoint that leaked on a plane flight...
It was to force developers to create one-button GUIs, which forced ease of use.
Except that they then had to add a second and then a third button... on the keyboard. Now it's a five-button mouse, with four of the buttons on the keyboard, and no easier to learn than a five-button mouse would be.
The original Xerox design settled on the same set of actions using a three button mouse: the three buttons had the effect of click, shift-click, and control-click - so you could use the system with *just* the mouse, you didn't need the keyboard at all. At one point one of the developers was even writing code with just the mouse to see how well it worked (obviously, doing a lot of cut and paste).
The original one-button mouse did however make it easier to give demos.
Scratch that off the list of things Steve Jobs would never do!
"No ugly monitors on nice Macs" (no headless Macs) became "BYOKDM" (Mac mini) "Best $50 you ever spend" (no flash iPod) became "Life is Random" (iPod Shuffle)
But Steve never said "no intel CPUs". They even had an Intel version of Rhapsody in the '90s.
What's next? Retail Mac OS X for PCs would probably be the biggest shocker...
But its got a touch sensor under each finger to determine WHICH finger made it click.
So if I'm using an X11 program that uses chords for extra functions, I can't chord with it. If I normally rest my fingers on top of the mouse, I can't do that because it'll confuse the sensor.
You can still click-n-hold using the side tabs without fear of activating button-4, since this button is pressure sensitive.
I'll believe that when I see it. The current mouse is pretty slippery and I have to hold it pretty firmly to be sure it's not going to release the button in the wrong place.
Stylish design... complicated engineering... tricky to use... bland looks... it's not for everybody.
Apple's mice do travel up and down the touch sensitivity is simply to determine if you want left or right.
OK, Does it rock or not?
That's one person who's said it rocks, one who says it's just a touch sensor.
It it actually rocks like the existing mouse, that makes the squeeze function even more stupid because now there's NO WAY to lift the mouse while dragging a file. That's gotta make those 30" displays a real pain to use Finder on.
But what you speak of is a typical usability issue.
To be precise, it's a typical Apple usability issue.
Like the "hockey-puck" mouse was a typical Apple usability issue.
Like the "rocker" mouse and the way you have to carefully hold it by two little tabs to pick it up and move it was a typical Apple usability issue. The two little tabs, by the way, that are right where the force buttons on this mouse are.
Usability issues and recent Apple mice go together like security issues and Internet Explorer.
When you're "holding down" the button, your finger is just on the mouse, no pressure needed.
Ok, that's another reason this is the worst mouse ever. You can't rest your fingers on the mouse buttons.
It is just like picking up the mouse (you don't have to squeeze that hard).
You're missing the point.
Here I am, I have the old Apple mouse. I want to move the mouse while I'm holding this file. Oh, there's a book in the way. I grasp the mouse firmly while holding the rocker depressed, pick it up, move it back a bit, and put it down and keep moving.
Here I am, I have the new Apple mouse. It looks and feels very similar to the old one. I want to move the mouse while I am holding this file. Oh, there's a book in the way. I grasp the mouse firmly while holding the... whoops, Dashboard just came up!
Other than the weird idea that having "stealth" mouse buttons is a good idea, look at the "squeeze" function.
Those buttons on the size that you're supposed to "squeeze" to activate Expose? Those are in the same spot as the only non-moving part of Apple's previous mouse. If you want to pick up the mouse while holding the button down (say, you're dragging something and you hit the edge of the mouse pad) you HAVE to squeeze it in those two spots.
*sigh*
Apple used to care about design. Now they just care about style.
Excuse the question, but do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
Of course I don't: I don't use Gnome... if I did I wouldn't have been surprised at the idea that anyone would have actually thought resurrecting the spatial Finder was a good idea. That's why I wrote "if there isn't a non-spatial version".
Excuse the question, but do you understand what the word if means?
If you try to modify and/or recompile the source then the Trust chip generates a different hash for the software and refuses to give it the proper keys to read the data files. [...] You can run the modified software just fine, but it won't work. It can't read the files and cannot connect to internet
That's a violation of the GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The GPL grants you the right to modify and use the software without restrictions. If some component does not allow this, you can not distribute that component as part of the software. You can not legally include any part of a TPM system that is as strong as you describe in a GPL-ed kernel.
This does not apply to Mac OS X, so Panic Is Still An Option there, but it does apply to a GPL-ed kernel.
Though I really doubt Apple could survive the backlash that would result from applying the kind of intrusive monitoring and obsessive certification of EVERY driver and kernel component necessary to prevent someone from using one to backdoor the kernel and replace the secure environment after boot.
The thing to come away with here is that just because the hardware driver for TPM is in the kernel it doesn't mean that a userspace DRM implementation which uses the driver needs to be GPL.
The "thing to come away with" is that any part of the DRM implementation that isn't operating at a level below the lowest level that you have source code access to can be trivially compromised.
Your point appears to be that any hardware device can always be emulated and such an emulated device can be dropped into a GPL kernel to pass whatever important bits of info might be required back to userspace.
No, that's not my point at all. You're focussing on one of the possible attacks that I mentioned in a whole list of separate attacks, and any scheme that you can come up with is subject to most of those attacks.
The problem is that any components that are performing the decoding can be compromised in detail and the decoded stream can be extracted, unless the entire stack (from the BIOS and TPM hardware, the kernel (incloading all loadable drivers), and the application environment) is locked down and not subject to modification by the attacker.
You don't need to emulate the TPM if you can reach in to the CODEC and extract the decoded bits between the time it decodes the stream and the time it passes them on to the graphics or sound card.
That's why Windows Media Player uses kernel components to prevent you from compromising Windows Media Player itself or the data streams that it's operating on.
Microsoft has a whole database of software that's its IRM knows about and that a publisher can lock out, so that any IRM-aware application will refuse to display the document if any of that software is running.
If the NT kernel was open source (let alone GPLed) this whole environment could be compromised and spoofed at any point, so that (for example) the kernel components could be given a fake view of the running programs that never showed you SekritPatchTool. This kind of mechanism is a common part of rootkits, and could trivially be applied here.
If it was GPLed, then not only would you control the environment of any kernel components that are used to establish that the application is running in a secure environment, you have the source code to them as well.
And this whole secure execution environment is absolutely required by strong DRM. Anything less makes your DRM no stronger than one implemented entirely in user space.
but what about your latest new TPM aware graphics card?
I've already addressed this. If the decoding and DRM is implemented in the graphics card, then the rest of the computer is just a conduit between the server containing the plaintext and the card, and so it doesn't matter what the OS and applications are. The whole DRM system would then be running at a level below the lowest level the attacker has source code to.
If the card only requires a signature, then it doesn't matter... you've compromised the data and stripped the DRM off it, so you just call it "my movies from last week's holiday" and re-sign it as if you were the author. Now the graphics card is happy to play it.
We used, at various times, Microsoft Xenix, Intel Xenix, SCO Xenix, SCO UNIX, SCO Open Desktop, Novell Unixware, SCO Unixware, and SCO Open Server.
Xenix started out pretty good, for the time, but it quickly became dated. After they gave up on Xenix and started over with System V it all went to heck.
Each time what we got was different. You could watch as they started over with SVR0, SVR3.0, SVR3.2, SVR4 and proceeded to layer more of their signature wonky configuration and management tools on top of it. And each time around they'd have a new set of tools written by clearly different people. Some were actually pretty good, but they always ended up looking like a trashed out trailer that'd been painted six times in thirty years without ever scraping off the old paint or fixing the broken boards first.
We called it Open Deathtrap and Open Sewer.
I'd be horribly surprised if it was any better this time around.
You better recheck your bell, man, or maybe you've got a grandfathered deal. Those were the currently offered prices for the PC Card without voice support. Voice added an additional airtime charge.
The idea that you can simply "move away from pollution" is nuts. I'm sorry, but any analysis of externalities that's as shallow as that is worthless.
I wrote: You're talking about the path to the present day. You write: No. I'm talking about what caused the problem in the first place.
I fail to see the difference between these two statements.
You write: If I grant you that an improperly regulated private sector is the problem, then sending more regulatory power to the government, which caused the problem in the first place, is going to make it worse.
Where did I suggest doing so?
The DMCA doesn't exist because the private sector can create law.
I rather think it does.
They've done this by pimping it to the private sector.
And one reason is that every time you turn around there's some guy talking about "smaller government" and "less government" when what they mean is "we don't need to regulate the stuff we've already outsourced to the private sector".
And there you are, saying that the government is the problem. They point to you and say "look, see, he agrees with me".
I still don't understand how, when a telco does this, it's as bad as when a government does this.
Because this is 2005, and it's too hard for a Western government to do it. But a telco still can manage it.
Right now, for example, for the US government to shut down access to a website they need to get a court order requesting it, and then they take that to the ISP and the ISP shuts it down... and the guy with the website goes "hey, my website's down" and sets it up again for $10 a year. If the government wants to keep it quiet, the best they can do (unless they have a particularly cooperative ISP) is to get the ISP to say "I'm not allowed to tell you".
If a telco decides to do it, they're the ISP already. They just program the routers. They can make excuses, they can stretch the whole process out as long as they want, they can make it show up properly some places, some time. They can even make it look like it's up to you and down to everyone else. And when you're finally tired of it, you get a website at another ISP for $10.00 a year.
Hell, it's actually easier to move your website to another country than for you to move to another telco.
Heck, I'm kind of worried about some of the stuff ISPs are doing right now where I kind of agree that there's nothing better they CAN do about some negative externalities... because the government refuses to enforce the laws already on the books... because it's easier for the telcos to do it.
I posted a long time ago that they would add hardware DRM and put the software keys at the core of the OS.
That's certainly possible, and I am concerned about it, but they're using an Infineon chip, not Intel... surely that chip could have been used in a PowerPC system... the Power PC supports the LPC bus they use.
Even if it has been flung from its parent solar system into deep space.
One would imagine that would give a body a rather eccentric orbit. Aren't these bodies in fairly circular ones (even Pluto's orbit is pretty much circular to the naked eye)?
That is, IMHO, reason to be angry with the government. They have divested their power to someone else in exchange for soft money.
What, back in 1852 when the Patent Office was created?
That's certainly possible, though they didn't use mealy-mouthed terms like "soft money" back then. Spoilsmanship was good enough for the likes of Andrew Jackson, after all.
I seem to recall that they started granting real rights to fictitious persons called corporations back aound then.
Or was it when the US Constitution granted government the right to create these monopolies?
Most of the time, a mistake that a private corporation makes only impacts you because you're in a customer or employee relationship with them.
Or you live near their facilities, or your parents did, or you live downstream or downwind,...
These are the classic "negative externalities", and they have nothing to do with government interference... except for being the motivation for it.
IMHO, your complaints shouldn't be with the private sector. They should be with the fact that the government has taken away your ability to regulate the private sector.
You're talking about the path to the present day. I'm simply describing the present day. And in the present day the private sector is the problem.
Whether this is fixed by having the government actually enforce the laws that exist to regulate the private sector, or roll back the laws that create the right to control speech and grant this and other rights to "cutouts" and hold the humans who actually make bad decisions accountable for them, is more or less irrelevant.
The fact is, right now, the individuals who are right now making the decisions that are right now leading to the suppression of free speech are people who are working in the private rather than the public sector. And things like surreptitiously suppressing access to a critical website are among the results of these decisions.
Corruption doesn't come "with government" or "with the private sector", it comes with power and control. And right now, the people with that power and control are not, except at the very top, the people in government.
Compared to BeOS, Rhapsody DR1 (with half the interface Apple-style toolbar and half still using NeXTstep's big-blocks-of-stuff) was closer to production quality.
Mac OS X started out with a solid kernel and a bunch of solid apps. BeOS started with nothing but a design and Be was learning as they went. It's really impressive how far they got but they were definitely pre-doomed worse than the Amiga (which at least had a working computer and operating system at launch).
Apple has always supported SCSI, so those options are all available, AFAIK. Including Amanda.
If you look at that page you will see that it says "--without-server" on the configure line. What this means is that the server (the part that actually uses the tape drive) is not compiled on these boxes. Just the client is. You can't run Amanda as a server on Mac OS X because Mac OS X doesn't support the UNIX tape device.
This has nothing to do with supporting SCSI.
It has to do with supporting the UNIX API for tape drives, whether they're SCSI, SMD, IDE, Floppy-tape, or anything else.
Supporting resource forks and finder info is the least of the problem. There are versions of Tar and Pax that have extensions for Apple's extra file attributes, and for UFS partitions you don't even need that. The bigger problem, the fact that Mac OS X has abandoned UNIX tape support, remains.
Slashdot Mirror
And they are ergonomically sound, meaning they put less strain on your hands.
My arm hurts after I've been using the Apple "no button" mouse. Maybe I use it wrong, but it just doesn't do anything the way I expect it to.
You want to buy mine?
Yup, reminds me of the pen story from NASA. Apparently, NASA used some really complicated engineering to make a pen that would write in 0 gravity situations. Invested millions of dollars into it.
Russia, on the other hand, used pencils.
Great story, but it's completely wrong.
Both US and Russia originally used pencils, with the result that their spacecraft ended up full of flammable shavings and conductive graphite dust that caused all sorts of electrical problems, and after the Apollo 1 fire NASA put out a call for a writing instrument that: would work in zero gravity; wasn't flammable even in an oxygen athmosphere; and survived vacuum and extremes of heat and cold.
A private company (Fisher, I believe) ended up doing the development work and selling it... and made a mint on the "Space Pen" that could write at any angle.
The Russians ended up buying the Space Pen from Fisher just like NASA did.
These days most cheap ballpoints have enough pressure in the ink reservoir that they work fine in orbit... because being able to "write at any angle" is useful down here on Earth as well. I don't think I'd want to expose them to vacuum though, not after having a shirt ruined by a ballpoint that leaked on a plane flight...
It was to force developers to create one-button GUIs, which forced ease of use.
Except that they then had to add a second and then a third button... on the keyboard. Now it's a five-button mouse, with four of the buttons on the keyboard, and no easier to learn than a five-button mouse would be.
The original Xerox design settled on the same set of actions using a three button mouse: the three buttons had the effect of click, shift-click, and control-click - so you could use the system with *just* the mouse, you didn't need the keyboard at all. At one point one of the developers was even writing code with just the mouse to see how well it worked (obviously, doing a lot of cut and paste).
The original one-button mouse did however make it easier to give demos.
Kind of like the dock.
Scratch that off the list of things Steve Jobs would never do!
"No ugly monitors on nice Macs" (no headless Macs) became "BYOKDM" (Mac mini)
"Best $50 you ever spend" (no flash iPod) became "Life is Random" (iPod Shuffle)
But Steve never said "no intel CPUs". They even had an Intel version of Rhapsody in the '90s.
What's next? Retail Mac OS X for PCs would probably be the biggest shocker...
The option just doesn't show up unless your input device supports it.
And it also doesn't show up unless you're running Tiger, apparently.
I've got one Mac still running Jaguar, and two running Panther. I hate feeling like they're trying to pressure me into upgrading.
But its got a touch sensor under each finger to determine WHICH finger made it click.
So if I'm using an X11 program that uses chords for extra functions, I can't chord with it. If I normally rest my fingers on top of the mouse, I can't do that because it'll confuse the sensor.
You can still click-n-hold using the side tabs without fear of activating button-4, since this button is pressure sensitive.
I'll believe that when I see it. The current mouse is pretty slippery and I have to hold it pretty firmly to be sure it's not going to release the button in the wrong place.
Stylish design... complicated engineering... tricky to use... bland looks... it's not for everybody.
Apple's mice do travel up and down the touch sensitivity is simply to determine if you want left or right.
OK, Does it rock or not?
That's one person who's said it rocks, one who says it's just a touch sensor.
It it actually rocks like the existing mouse, that makes the squeeze function even more stupid because now there's NO WAY to lift the mouse while dragging a file. That's gotta make those 30" displays a real pain to use Finder on.
But what you speak of is a typical usability issue.
To be precise, it's a typical Apple usability issue.
Like the "hockey-puck" mouse was a typical Apple usability issue.
Like the "rocker" mouse and the way you have to carefully hold it by two little tabs to pick it up and move it was a typical Apple usability issue. The two little tabs, by the way, that are right where the force buttons on this mouse are.
Usability issues and recent Apple mice go together like security issues and Internet Explorer.
When you're "holding down" the button, your finger is just on the mouse, no pressure needed.
Ok, that's another reason this is the worst mouse ever. You can't rest your fingers on the mouse buttons.
It is just like picking up the mouse (you don't have to squeeze that hard).
You're missing the point.
Here I am, I have the old Apple mouse. I want to move the mouse while I'm holding this file. Oh, there's a book in the way. I grasp the mouse firmly while holding the rocker depressed, pick it up, move it back a bit, and put it down and keep moving.
Here I am, I have the new Apple mouse. It looks and feels very similar to the old one. I want to move the mouse while I am holding this file. Oh, there's a book in the way. I grasp the mouse firmly while holding the... whoops, Dashboard just came up!
What about chording? What if you press left and right at the same time (eg, 3rd button emulation in X11).
Other than the weird idea that having "stealth" mouse buttons is a good idea, look at the "squeeze" function.
Those buttons on the size that you're supposed to "squeeze" to activate Expose? Those are in the same spot as the only non-moving part of Apple's previous mouse. If you want to pick up the mouse while holding the button down (say, you're dragging something and you hit the edge of the mouse pad) you HAVE to squeeze it in those two spots.
*sigh*
Apple used to care about design. Now they just care about style.
Excuse the question, but do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
Of course I don't: I don't use Gnome... if I did I wouldn't have been surprised at the idea that anyone would have actually thought resurrecting the spatial Finder was a good idea. That's why I wrote "if there isn't a non-spatial version".
Excuse the question, but do you understand what the word if means?
First, there's no reason Apple couldn't bolt on DRM to PowerPC.
In fact the Infineon chip in the developer Macs uses the LPC bus, and the 970 supports that out of the box.
Regardless of DRM issues, Apple is still in urgent need of competitive laptop CPUs
Freescale's got one in the pipe, though.
That's a violation of the GPL:
The GPL grants you the right to modify and use the software without restrictions. If some component does not allow this, you can not distribute that component as part of the software. You can not legally include any part of a TPM system that is as strong as you describe in a GPL-ed kernel.
This does not apply to Mac OS X, so Panic Is Still An Option there, but it does apply to a GPL-ed kernel.
Though I really doubt Apple could survive the backlash that would result from applying the kind of intrusive monitoring and obsessive certification of EVERY driver and kernel component necessary to prevent someone from using one to backdoor the kernel and replace the secure environment after boot.
The thing to come away with here is that just because the hardware driver for TPM is in the kernel it doesn't mean that a userspace DRM implementation which uses the driver needs to be GPL.
The "thing to come away with" is that any part of the DRM implementation that isn't operating at a level below the lowest level that you have source code access to can be trivially compromised.
Your point appears to be that any hardware device can always be emulated and such an emulated device can be dropped into a GPL kernel to pass whatever important bits of info might be required back to userspace.
No, that's not my point at all. You're focussing on one of the possible attacks that I mentioned in a whole list of separate attacks, and any scheme that you can come up with is subject to most of those attacks.
The problem is that any components that are performing the decoding can be compromised in detail and the decoded stream can be extracted, unless the entire stack (from the BIOS and TPM hardware, the kernel (incloading all loadable drivers), and the application environment) is locked down and not subject to modification by the attacker.
You don't need to emulate the TPM if you can reach in to the CODEC and extract the decoded bits between the time it decodes the stream and the time it passes them on to the graphics or sound card.
That's why Windows Media Player uses kernel components to prevent you from compromising Windows Media Player itself or the data streams that it's operating on.
Microsoft has a whole database of software that's its IRM knows about and that a publisher can lock out, so that any IRM-aware application will refuse to display the document if any of that software is running.
If the NT kernel was open source (let alone GPLed) this whole environment could be compromised and spoofed at any point, so that (for example) the kernel components could be given a fake view of the running programs that never showed you SekritPatchTool. This kind of mechanism is a common part of rootkits, and could trivially be applied here.
If it was GPLed, then not only would you control the environment of any kernel components that are used to establish that the application is running in a secure environment, you have the source code to them as well.
And this whole secure execution environment is absolutely required by strong DRM. Anything less makes your DRM no stronger than one implemented entirely in user space.
but what about your latest new TPM aware graphics card?
I've already addressed this. If the decoding and DRM is implemented in the graphics card, then the rest of the computer is just a conduit between the server containing the plaintext and the card, and so it doesn't matter what the OS and applications are. The whole DRM system would then be running at a level below the lowest level the attacker has source code to.
If the card only requires a signature, then it doesn't matter... you've compromised the data and stripped the DRM off it, so you just call it "my movies from last week's holiday" and re-sign it as if you were the author. Now the graphics card is happy to play it.
We used, at various times, Microsoft Xenix, Intel Xenix, SCO Xenix, SCO UNIX, SCO Open Desktop, Novell Unixware, SCO Unixware, and SCO Open Server.
Xenix started out pretty good, for the time, but it quickly became dated. After they gave up on Xenix and started over with System V it all went to heck.
Each time what we got was different. You could watch as they started over with SVR0, SVR3.0, SVR3.2, SVR4 and proceeded to layer more of their signature wonky configuration and management tools on top of it. And each time around they'd have a new set of tools written by clearly different people. Some were actually pretty good, but they always ended up looking like a trashed out trailer that'd been painted six times in thirty years without ever scraping off the old paint or fixing the broken boards first.
We called it Open Deathtrap and Open Sewer.
I'd be horribly surprised if it was any better this time around.
You better recheck your bell, man, or maybe you've got a grandfathered deal. Those were the currently offered prices for the PC Card without voice support. Voice added an additional airtime charge.
The idea that you can simply "move away from pollution" is nuts. I'm sorry, but any analysis of externalities that's as shallow as that is worthless.
I wrote: You're talking about the path to the present day.
You write: No. I'm talking about what caused the problem in the first place.
I fail to see the difference between these two statements.
You write: If I grant you that an improperly regulated private sector is the problem, then sending more regulatory power to the government, which caused the problem in the first place, is going to make it worse.
Where did I suggest doing so?
The DMCA doesn't exist because the private sector can create law.
I rather think it does.
They've done this by pimping it to the private sector.
And one reason is that every time you turn around there's some guy talking about "smaller government" and "less government" when what they mean is "we don't need to regulate the stuff we've already outsourced to the private sector".
And there you are, saying that the government is the problem. They point to you and say "look, see, he agrees with me".
I still don't understand how, when a telco does this, it's as bad as when a government does this.
Because this is 2005, and it's too hard for a Western government to do it. But a telco still can manage it.
Right now, for example, for the US government to shut down access to a website they need to get a court order requesting it, and then they take that to the ISP and the ISP shuts it down... and the guy with the website goes "hey, my website's down" and sets it up again for $10 a year. If the government wants to keep it quiet, the best they can do (unless they have a particularly cooperative ISP) is to get the ISP to say "I'm not allowed to tell you".
If a telco decides to do it, they're the ISP already. They just program the routers. They can make excuses, they can stretch the whole process out as long as they want, they can make it show up properly some places, some time. They can even make it look like it's up to you and down to everyone else. And when you're finally tired of it, you get a website at another ISP for $10.00 a year.
Hell, it's actually easier to move your website to another country than for you to move to another telco.
Heck, I'm kind of worried about some of the stuff ISPs are doing right now where I kind of agree that there's nothing better they CAN do about some negative externalities... because the government refuses to enforce the laws already on the books... because it's easier for the telcos to do it.
I posted a long time ago that they would add hardware DRM and put the software keys at the core of the OS.
That's certainly possible, and I am concerned about it, but they're using an Infineon chip, not Intel... surely that chip could have been used in a PowerPC system... the Power PC supports the LPC bus they use.
Huh? What's wrong? That it's spatial
Yes, particularly if there isn't a non-spatial version.
BTW, that link just says "Too many connections".
Even if it has been flung from its parent solar system into deep space.
One would imagine that would give a body a rather eccentric orbit. Aren't these bodies in fairly circular ones (even Pluto's orbit is pretty much circular to the naked eye)?
That is, IMHO, reason to be angry with the government. They have divested their power to someone else in exchange for soft money.
...
What, back in 1852 when the Patent Office was created?
That's certainly possible, though they didn't use mealy-mouthed terms like "soft money" back then. Spoilsmanship was good enough for the likes of Andrew Jackson, after all.
I seem to recall that they started granting real rights to fictitious persons called corporations back aound then.
Or was it when the US Constitution granted government the right to create these monopolies?
Most of the time, a mistake that a private corporation makes only impacts you because you're in a customer or employee relationship with them.
Or you live near their facilities, or your parents did, or you live downstream or downwind,
These are the classic "negative externalities", and they have nothing to do with government interference... except for being the motivation for it.
IMHO, your complaints shouldn't be with the private sector. They should be with the fact that the government has taken away your ability to regulate the private sector.
You're talking about the path to the present day. I'm simply describing the present day. And in the present day the private sector is the problem.
Whether this is fixed by having the government actually enforce the laws that exist to regulate the private sector, or roll back the laws that create the right to control speech and grant this and other rights to "cutouts" and hold the humans who actually make bad decisions accountable for them, is more or less irrelevant.
The fact is, right now, the individuals who are right now making the decisions that are right now leading to the suppression of free speech are people who are working in the private rather than the public sector. And things like surreptitiously suppressing access to a critical website are among the results of these decisions.
Corruption doesn't come "with government" or "with the private sector", it comes with power and control. And right now, the people with that power and control are not, except at the very top, the people in government.
Compared to BeOS, Rhapsody DR1 (with half the interface Apple-style toolbar and half still using NeXTstep's big-blocks-of-stuff) was closer to production quality.
Mac OS X started out with a solid kernel and a bunch of solid apps. BeOS started with nothing but a design and Be was learning as they went. It's really impressive how far they got but they were definitely pre-doomed worse than the Amiga (which at least had a working computer and operating system at launch).
Apple has always supported SCSI, so those options are all available, AFAIK. Including Amanda.
If you look at that page you will see that it says "--without-server" on the configure line. What this means is that the server (the part that actually uses the tape drive) is not compiled on these boxes. Just the client is. You can't run Amanda as a server on Mac OS X because Mac OS X doesn't support the UNIX tape device.
This has nothing to do with supporting SCSI.
It has to do with supporting the UNIX API for tape drives, whether they're SCSI, SMD, IDE, Floppy-tape, or anything else.
Supporting resource forks and finder info is the least of the problem. There are versions of Tar and Pax that have extensions for Apple's extra file attributes, and for UFS partitions you don't even need that. The bigger problem, the fact that Mac OS X has abandoned UNIX tape support, remains.