Apple doesn't have a high performance virus distribution mechanism yet. It's way too easy to turn off "open safe files after download" in Safari and then all you've got to work with is social engineering.
what's the stop M$ from requiring any updates and patches to come through this new P2P system, thus making it almost mandatory to install it on your system if you ever want to update your OS.
That would be a significant improvement in security over the mechanism they currently use.
What eventually happened to that highly proprietary format that nobody wanted to use?
The only people who use it are a couple of pay music sites. Only 15% of the music players being sold at the moment even support it, and Microsoft's negotiating with the labels to get them to distribute music in WMA to people who've bought it in MP4 format for free.
MP3 remains the lowest common denominator and it's the music format that virtually everyone uses online, except for a few who have switched to MP4 and a few that insist on OGG.
Looks to me like it's the de-facto method of internet video distribution.
Congestion... "bad weather" on the Internet or (more likely) at your ISP can make the available bandwith vary by orders of magnitude day to day. A new botnet turns up, your neighbor ticks off someone on IRC, zap, you're down by 50% or more. Nobody's going to worry about a factor of 0.30 difference in download speeds next to that, it's lost in the noise.
Earthlink reports all of its cable modem customers to DUL because we are forced to use "dynamic" addresses with DHCP.
So don't use your cable modem as your outgoing mail server. If your outgoing traffic volume is small, you can get a virtual colo with a low traffic cap. for much less than the $15/month your DSL peers are paying and make that your smarthost.
The spammers are constantly moving from zombie client to zombie client in huge waves of hundreds of thousands of infected systems, making the RBL always filled with obsolete and incorrect information.
That doesn't actually matter, because there's virtually no overlap between legitimate mail sources and zombies. Infected desktop or laptop PCs are not also SMTP mail servers: if by chance someone is using a desktop PC as their outgoing SMTP server, AND they're using that same desktop PC for other purposes, AND they are unable to keep it from being infected, then they should be on a blacklist.
Jef's a great guy, but he's not always right. For example, he also says "don't use qmail because it always bounces after receipt". I use qmail, and yet I somehow manage to handle bounces in the initial handshake.
Leaving any IP on a blacklist for any period of time doesn't help.
Then you should have no problem with SBL. They automatically delete listings after six months, even for known spam gangs (though of course they get back in again if they're still being used).
And some spammers really do spam from the same address for years. I've got several addresses that I've had in a hardcoded block list on my mail server that are still spamming me after two or even three years. And the SBL is effective: I use my own dynamic block lists and greylists and dynamic IP lists, and the SBL still blocks a huge number of messages after all that.
People switched from MAPS because the other lists were free, not because MAPS was too aggressive.
"As of this writing, any filter relying on the SBL is now marking email with the url "paulgraham.com" as spam."
Whisky Tango Foxtrot? *BLs block IP address ranges, not URLs.
"Because the guys at the SBL want to pressure Yahoo, where paulgraham.com is hosted, to delete the site of a company they believe is spamming."
1. Given that Paul's mixing up URLs and addresses of mail servers, I'm not prepared to take at face value the statement that SBL is blocking Yahoo's mail servers to pressure Yahoo to drop a "site", rather than (say) mail services Yahoo is providing the spammer.
2. If Yahoo is providing services to a spammer and Yahoo refuses to deny those services to a spammer, than Yahoo is being "spam friendly", no matter what their reputation is, and they may well be depending on the many legitimate lists they're hosting to avoid responsibility for their actions. That's exactly the situation that John Reid is referring to in Paul's quote.
I don't know what alleged spammer this is referring to, but what Paul's written is clearly not anywhere near the whole story.
Sort of. The retail boxed OS X isn't really what they sell it for, that's their upgrade price for existing customers.
For $499 you get OS X and they throw in a cheap little computer to run it on. I would guess the Mac mini has about $200 worth of parts in it, so $300 is about the minimum you could expect them to sell a retail OS X Generic for.
The "mac experience" which includes both software and hardware is gone.
Not a moment too soon. The flat panel iMacs (G4 and G5) are nice, but the G3 iMacs stank and the eMac is no better. The laptops have lousy keyboards, low resolution screens, and only one mouse button. The G5 tower is the size of a server and has less expansion capacity than a mini-tower or desktop. Speaking of which, the Mac mini is basically a half-price laptop with no screen, and it'd be a MUCH better computer if it was a slab like the Performa 4xx or the NeXTstation.
Though there's better options than Dell. I'd rather they work with Lenovo on an OSX-based Thinkpad. Their last laptop collaboration with then-IBM was quite well-received.
People can already compare Apples to apples. The ones buying based on specs are already buying generic PCs running Windows. The ones buying Macs know perfectly well they're paying a "Mac Tax" to get a machine that runs Mac OS X... they're not naive, they're not going to wake up and go "Oh my god, I can get a Windows box cheaper, why didn't I notice that before?".
Well, yes, that's one way it maintains its monopoly. Microsoft sells Windows to end users for hundreds of dollars, but to OEMs for tens of dollars. That way they get a high margin from retail sales and use them to both subsidise wholesale and cross-subsidise other products.
Re:Using intel != magical PC compatibillity
on
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Did he say Macintoshes would now boot on ye olde' compaq in the basement? Nope.
That's basically what the development kits are. Generic intel motherboard and chipset in an almost-empty G5 case that looks like a bad joke casemod.
Slashdot Mirror
some people are now parsing email, and checking the IP of all URLs. If any one of them is listed on a blacklist, then the email is rejected.
So Yahoo's running outgoing SMTP from the address of Paul's webserver?
I'm curious about where you got that $300 price?
I just told you.
Cost of Mac mini to a customer, minus the estimated cost of the Mac mini parts to Apple.
There is nothing wrong with OpenOffice.
*snort*
I'd rather use punched cards.
Apple doesn't have a high performance virus distribution mechanism yet. It's way too easy to turn off "open safe files after download" in Safari and then all you've got to work with is social engineering.
what's the stop M$ from requiring any updates and patches to come through this new P2P system, thus making it almost mandatory to install it on your system if you ever want to update your OS.
That would be a significant improvement in security over the mechanism they currently use.
No, I'm not kidding.
What eventually happened to that highly proprietary format that nobody wanted to use?
The only people who use it are a couple of pay music sites. Only 15% of the music players being sold at the moment even support it, and Microsoft's negotiating with the labels to get them to distribute music in WMA to people who've bought it in MP4 format for free.
MP3 remains the lowest common denominator and it's the music format that virtually everyone uses online, except for a few who have switched to MP4 and a few that insist on OGG.
Looks to me like it's the de-facto method of internet video distribution.
What does that have to do with mp3?
Congestion ... "bad weather" on the Internet or (more likely) at your ISP can make the available bandwith vary by orders of magnitude day to day. A new botnet turns up, your neighbor ticks off someone on IRC, zap, you're down by 50% or more. Nobody's going to worry about a factor of 0.30 difference in download speeds next to that, it's lost in the noise.
Earthlink reports all of its cable modem customers to DUL because we are forced to use "dynamic" addresses with DHCP.
So don't use your cable modem as your outgoing mail server. If your outgoing traffic volume is small, you can get a virtual colo with a low traffic cap. for much less than the $15/month your DSL peers are paying and make that your smarthost.
The spammers are constantly moving from zombie client to zombie client in huge waves of hundreds of thousands of infected systems, making the RBL always filled with obsolete and incorrect information.
That doesn't actually matter, because there's virtually no overlap between legitimate mail sources and zombies. Infected desktop or laptop PCs are not also SMTP mail servers: if by chance someone is using a desktop PC as their outgoing SMTP server, AND they're using that same desktop PC for other purposes, AND they are unable to keep it from being infected, then they should be on a blacklist.
RBLs don't have anything to do with "adding headers to email".
SPF is irrelevant to spam. More than half of the SPF records in use belong to spammers.
Jef's a great guy, but he's not always right. For example, he also says "don't use qmail because it always bounces after receipt". I use qmail, and yet I somehow manage to handle bounces in the initial handshake.
Leaving any IP on a blacklist for any period of time doesn't help.
Then you should have no problem with SBL. They automatically delete listings after six months, even for known spam gangs (though of course they get back in again if they're still being used).
And some spammers really do spam from the same address for years. I've got several addresses that I've had in a hardcoded block list on my mail server that are still spamming me after two or even three years. And the SBL is effective: I use my own dynamic block lists and greylists and dynamic IP lists, and the SBL still blocks a huge number of messages after all that.
People switched from MAPS because the other lists were free, not because MAPS was too aggressive.
"As of this writing, any filter relying on the SBL is now marking email with the url "paulgraham.com" as spam."
Whisky Tango Foxtrot? *BLs block IP address ranges, not URLs.
"Because the guys at the SBL want to pressure Yahoo, where paulgraham.com is hosted, to delete the site of a company they believe is spamming."
1. Given that Paul's mixing up URLs and addresses of mail servers, I'm not prepared to take at face value the statement that SBL is blocking Yahoo's mail servers to pressure Yahoo to drop a "site", rather than (say) mail services Yahoo is providing the spammer.
2. If Yahoo is providing services to a spammer and Yahoo refuses to deny those services to a spammer, than Yahoo is being "spam friendly", no matter what their reputation is, and they may well be depending on the many legitimate lists they're hosting to avoid responsibility for their actions. That's exactly the situation that John Reid is referring to in Paul's quote.
I don't know what alleged spammer this is referring to, but what Paul's written is clearly not anywhere near the whole story.
Did you see Lenovo took out a bunch of full page and 2-page-spread ads saying "we know how cool the Thinkpad is and we promise not to fuck it up"?
I agree, the Thinkpad is a far better laptop than the 'books.
Sort of. The retail boxed OS X isn't really what they sell it for, that's their upgrade price for existing customers.
For $499 you get OS X and they throw in a cheap little computer to run it on. I would guess the Mac mini has about $200 worth of parts in it, so $300 is about the minimum you could expect them to sell a retail OS X Generic for.
But here's the real reason I've never bought a Mac, and will continue to not by Macs: I like building computers.
The G4 motherboards worked great in PC cases, but it's amazing some of the mac casemods out there.
The "mac experience" which includes both software and hardware is gone.
Not a moment too soon. The flat panel iMacs (G4 and G5) are nice, but the G3 iMacs stank and the eMac is no better. The laptops have lousy keyboards, low resolution screens, and only one mouse button. The G5 tower is the size of a server and has less expansion capacity than a mini-tower or desktop. Speaking of which, the Mac mini is basically a half-price laptop with no screen, and it'd be a MUCH better computer if it was a slab like the Performa 4xx or the NeXTstation.
Though there's better options than Dell. I'd rather they work with Lenovo on an OSX-based Thinkpad. Their last laptop collaboration with then-IBM was quite well-received.
A vendor cannot dictate the resale price of goods sold to other middlemen.
A vendor can charge a license fee, though. This is called franchising. It's legal. You can make a lot of money at it.
People can already compare Apples to apples. The ones buying based on specs are already buying generic PCs running Windows. The ones buying Macs know perfectly well they're paying a "Mac Tax" to get a machine that runs Mac OS X... they're not naive, they're not going to wake up and go "Oh my god, I can get a Windows box cheaper, why didn't I notice that before?".
Well, yes, that's one way it maintains its monopoly. Microsoft sells Windows to end users for hundreds of dollars, but to OEMs for tens of dollars. That way they get a high margin from retail sales and use them to both subsidise wholesale and cross-subsidise other products.
Did he say Macintoshes would now boot on ye olde' compaq in the basement? Nope.
That's basically what the development kits are. Generic intel motherboard and chipset in an almost-empty G5 case that looks like a bad joke casemod.
Oooh, that actually makes sense. A plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.
Look at how many times he's hinted at shipping AMD only to follow up with "ha ha ha, trick you..."
Schiller said: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac
Thw video I saw said "enable" not "allow".
Once you have Emacs ported you can start implementing the frequently proposed vmunix.el.