The reason some printers work on OS X and not on Linux is because CUPS allows running binary print filters. Remember, CUPS has nothing to do with preparing a data stream for printing. It is merely a queue manager. All it does to prepare a data stream is to hand it off to the filter program.
Many printer manufacturers use Carbon filters for OS X. Game over.
Now about ESR's comments, I never really saw what was so hard about it. Not that I'm claiming to be incredibly smarter than him, but the hardest part of setting up a printer using CUPS under Debian was knowing that I had to point my browser at http://localhost:631/. After that, what's so hard about clicking on Printers, Add Printer, then select the make and model? Seems pretty easy to me.
Maybe ESR wasn't using the CUPS web interface, but instead using some GNOME/KDE front end. Well then that's the problem because GNOME & KDE both suck anyway. For that matter, the OS X GUI front end to CUPS isn't all that great either. Really, the only great thing about CUPS on OS X is that when you plug in your printer, it just works and doesn't need to be configured.
...but Debian voting requires me to be an official Debian member, or developer, or something-or-other, and they must have my PGP key on file beforehand, and lots of other I'm-not-good-enough-to-vote reasons.
I understand the need to prevent ballot stuffing (especially with a purely electronic voting boothe) but it's damn near impossible for mere mortals to vote, even though I'm active in the Debian community, contribute bug reports, run a data center with 50 Debian servers and my vote would probably be representative of a large portion of Debian users.
An applet that runs inside the browser and doesn't ask you jack and is able to break out of the "sandbox" and infect unrelated, non-running programs, yea, I'd call that a Sun problem. Or an applet that runs inside the browser and is able to gather info about the system and make GET requests with said gathered info in the query string, yea, I'd call that a Sun problem.
Cookie tracking is not an issue. I have lots of programs that deal with cookies. A java applet that md5 fingerprints my PC and then sends the MD5 sum in a GET request back to the server, yea, I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that, and yes that's Sun's fault. But I don't run java because it's too damned insecure so wtf do I care?
I'd be perfectly willing for most archs to be dropped for release considerations. In all practicality, greater than 90% of the people using Debian won't be using anything beyond the 4 archs.
This proposal is natually very release oriented. There're so many different systems supported by Debian it's damn near impossible to reduce the RC bug count accross all of them to be able to release. Ignoring RC bugs on all but the four main purely for release purposes would really help the rest of us out. Anybody installing Debian on m68k or alpha just flat out needs to buy a new computer, and anybody installing on Arm will probably be better suited by LFS instead. Very few people will be running a production server on mips, mipsel, or sparc (although, sparc more than the other two). Which only leaves s390, the platform with the weakest Debian support, and they've probably already been told by their boss to run Red Hat anyway, and if they haven't and do in fact get the luxury of running Debian on s390 probably aren't going to be too perturbed with not using an officially supported platform (since I don't think they complain too loudly now anyway).
So I'd like to keep them all around as unoffically supported, but yea for the sake of releasing on 4 platforms I don't mind dropping the others.
VitalSecurity's report points out that this vulnerability can (only) affect Windows users who use Sun's Java Runtime Environment.
Translation: There's nothing wrong with Firefox. There is a severe bug in Sun's JRE, which is about the 3rd java vulnerability in a row that's alarmed me. I'm starting to think that running Java is just like running any other untrusted remotely loaded executable.
Some developers want to spin the suite out as a community project that the foundation has no responsibility for
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Mozilla Foundation formed because Netscape/AOL wanted Mozilla to become a community project that the corporation has no responsibility for?
If the Mozilla Foundation has no responsibility for the Mozilla codebase, just what is the point of their existence?
I say desolve the foundation permanently. Give project leaders direct control over their codebases. Fear will keep the users in line! Fear of this battlesta-- . . . no, wait, I mean Microsoft, fear of Microsoft.
Seriously though, if the Mozilla Foundation doesn't want control/responsibility of the Mozilla codebase they should just simply disband and give the code back to the community. Someone will pick it up.
I have a friend who prefers doing all his school work on a windows machine because on a linux machine will get distracted with fiddleing with it.
Which can be roughly restated as "only by using this boring piece of crap Windows box am I able to stay disciplined long enough to get my homework done."
If most Windows users cannot handle Linux that really says something about the usability of Linux.
I actually wasn't referring to its usability. I was referring to the fact that Windows users by and large are unwilling to try. They claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop because "it doesn't do X like Windows does". Well of course not, that's because it's not Windows. They're afraid to try something different for the simple fact that it's different and they feel intimidated by that.
XP is not bad as long as you are very strict about what software is installed. If you are not, it feels dirty to use after a few months.
I've been using OS X for a year, Linux for 5 years, and I used various incarnations of Windows for 6 years before that. On a large screen I'm most productive on either Linux or OS X. On a small screen I absolutely need Exposé. And Windows, well XP is not bad as long as I only install putty and use it as a way to open many shells on a real OS. Even then it's difficult to get any real work done when I'm forced to use Windows. I agree with the author in that I spend more time fighting with Windows to get it to do what I need it to do.
are you using this as proof that Linux is better than Windows, or worse?
Neither. I personally, due to experience, believe Linux is far superior. I'm using my earlier statement as evidence that Windows users are lazy, incompetent and afraid of the other-os-boogie-man. I've taken 3 computer know-nothings in the past year and put them on Linux (Debian no less). They do their work every day, quite happily and virus/spyware free. All it takes is a little bit of effort.
c) They're not arrogant enough to assume that their choice should be embraced by everyone else.
How about:
d) think that claiming option c covers up the fact that they are actually option b people.
I've been around the block a few times. In my experience, anyone who says "windows is better" and then qualifies it with "for me" either a) attempted to install Linux and failed miserably, or b) never seriously used another operating system (or even used another one for more than 5 minutes). Most windows users couldn't handle Linux if their life depended on it, and have never set their hands on a modern Mac. They do this all the while attempting to trivialize the differences between a UNIX workstation (OS X included) and Windows by saying idiotic things like "they're converging" or "the reason there are no virii for Mac/Linux is because no one uses them".
Give it up people. Let go of your petty prejudices and actually give another OS a real try. Try it to it's fullest potential (like the author of TFA did) and then start talking about which OS is better than another OS.
I actually spent several hours researching this because I was getting them in Firefox on OS X, but not Safari or Firefox on Linux. When my roommate started getting them on Linux I was quite surprised.
In every case I eventually tracked it down to either Flash or Java objects loaded into a page that requested a window be opened. Also in every case it seemed to be a well known advertising site that the object originated from.
The reason I never got any in Safari but did in Firefox is because I use Safari as my main browser so I've got PithHelmet installed, which comes with a healthy list of things to block, whereas I use Firefox only for testing so I've got little to nothing listed in my AdBlock rules. At work where I use a Linux desktop I have a healthy list of AdBlock rules.
If you're concerned about your privacy, avoiding ads, or popups you need to have at minimum AdBlock, CookieCuller and X installed for Firefox. If you're using Safari, PithHelmet is absolutely the best.
Sounds like a good example of how screwed up poe is (or was) as well. Why the fuck anyone would sing a contract like that is beyond me, but it's not like a record exec put a pen in her hand and Luger in her mouth.
She's not, and wasn't screwed up, just screwed over. Young musically (or otherwise artistically) inclined people are not lawyers. When the record company comes by with the tantalizing offer of becoming a millionaire most of them don't know enough about business or the world in general to negotiate a contract properly. "Sign this and you'll be rich and famous, the details are just formality, no need to read them".
Think about it. Most "hits" are from artists that are in their early 20's. When have you ever known someone that young to make a fully rational decision? Record companies know the position they are in, and they know full well that they are taking advantage of someone who can't fight back.
Even industry giants have little choice but to shut up and take it. Prince went for many years with no name and referred to only as the artist formerly known as Prince. That happened because he got screwed by his publisher and wasn't even allowed to use his name because even it was under contract. I could go on and on about artists that get screwed. The list is as long as the number of musicians signed by record companies.
The record companies have a stranglehold on the music industry and only a few people are able to get out from under it. The moral of the story here guys is SUPPORT THE ARTISTS, ESPECIALLY INDEPENDANTS. The only way people like Prince, Maria Schneider, or Poe will be able to get out from under the control of record companies is fan support and lots of it.
It'll be interesting if a pop singer pulls a similar stunt for his/her next album, and we'll have a real comparison, and see how (un)important a publisher is in terms of marketing and sales.
Unfortunately, most artists aren't able to do anything like this. Case in point Poe (or try the iTunes link) has basically been screwed left and right by Atlantic for the past 5 years. She can't perform any of her own songs until 7 years after her contract expires, and at current, if I understand correctly, she is essentially barred from creating any new music and releasing it without Atlantic's approval.
Even Prince had to bend over and take it. His contract was so bad he wasn't even able to use his performing name until the contract expired.
All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.
It was probably cached, which does nothing to help anyone. Any user no matter how long they've been using computers is apt to think that disabling it will make a difference right away. I've been developing websites for close to 10 years, and browser cache is the biggest thorn in my side in that area.
While you can view the certificate in Firefox, it takes a whopping 4 clicks to get the info that shows the page is bogus (double click the lock icon, click security tab, click view cert). The average user will never find it. Even the above average users will be thrown by the General tab which shows the spoofed URL as though it were the real one. If they don't actively hunt down all indications that a site may be spoofed, they're going to be fooled.
What's worse, is that Safari doesn't even give the option to view certificates that it thinks are valid (not expired and signed by a valid root CA).
More than that: Often, they don't know there is anything else.
This is more true than I had realized. I've been milling about the Apple forums lately and I saw a guy who was very upset and frustrated because he couldn't find Windows XP on his iBook..
IBM would never have put weight behind Linux because it had its own operating system to push.
FUD FUD FUD. IBM does have it's own operating system to push. It's called AIX, which IBM is swiftly moving away from and pushing Linux so much in favor over. I don't recall IBM making any suggestions that anyone should (or even could) run Linux as a desktop alternative. Even after proclaiming Linux "ready for the desktop" not a single IBM PC was ever sold with Linux as an option, let alone the default or only OS.
No, IBM is only interested in Linux as a replacemnt for AIX. If Windows 3.0 never existed IBM still would have found Linux and they still would have put it on their servers. The only difference is that OS/2 or NeXT would be the dominant desktop OS, and the world wouldn't be overrun with spyware, virii and other malware.
In that same token, I don't think I'd call a $30 Wal-Mart DVD player exactly "next-gen". I don't even think the "good" $80 players are anywhere close to next-gen either. DVD players are comodity now. When the current class of DVD players was considered "next gen" technology even the crapiest ones were about $500. What do you think the first blue-ray dvd player will cost? Probably about $500 until prices come down (which they will). Yes, you can get a bottom of the line dirt cheap player, but it's bottom of the line, certainly not next generation.
A next gen dvd player, IMHO, should play DVD's, CD's, be combined with a PVR, network with computers in the home, play music, photo slideshows, play games, support 7.1 surround sound, HD-DVD, Blue-Ray, and more. Of those technologies that currently available, the only thing the Mac Mini can't do right off the bat is PVR capability (you need to buy a firewire TV-Tuner for that).
This is also something that Microsoft realizes, that's why there's this big push for the "media PC". Except that the Media PC is $2000. Even if you bought a TV-Tuner for the Mac Mini your total cost is still half the cost of a Windows Media Center PC. And as Steve Jobs said many times in the keynote speech, 2005 is the year of HD. The Mac Mini is HD ready. Windows is not.
So be a cheapskate if you want to. I don't care in the slightest. I've got the rockinest DVD player on the block and it's called a Mac Mini.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason some printers work on OS X and not on Linux is because CUPS allows running binary print filters. Remember, CUPS has nothing to do with preparing a data stream for printing. It is merely a queue manager. All it does to prepare a data stream is to hand it off to the filter program.
Many printer manufacturers use Carbon filters for OS X. Game over.
Now about ESR's comments, I never really saw what was so hard about it. Not that I'm claiming to be incredibly smarter than him, but the hardest part of setting up a printer using CUPS under Debian was knowing that I had to point my browser at http://localhost:631/. After that, what's so hard about clicking on Printers, Add Printer, then select the make and model? Seems pretty easy to me.
Maybe ESR wasn't using the CUPS web interface, but instead using some GNOME/KDE front end. Well then that's the problem because GNOME & KDE both suck anyway. For that matter, the OS X GUI front end to CUPS isn't all that great either. Really, the only great thing about CUPS on OS X is that when you plug in your printer, it just works and doesn't need to be configured.
...but Debian voting requires me to be an official Debian member, or developer, or something-or-other, and they must have my PGP key on file beforehand, and lots of other I'm-not-good-enough-to-vote reasons.
I understand the need to prevent ballot stuffing (especially with a purely electronic voting boothe) but it's damn near impossible for mere mortals to vote, even though I'm active in the Debian community, contribute bug reports, run a data center with 50 Debian servers and my vote would probably be representative of a large portion of Debian users.
Doesn't you moron! DOESN'T!
An applet that runs inside the browser and doesn't ask you jack and is able to break out of the "sandbox" and infect unrelated, non-running programs, yea, I'd call that a Sun problem. Or an applet that runs inside the browser and is able to gather info about the system and make GET requests with said gathered info in the query string, yea, I'd call that a Sun problem.
Cookie tracking is not an issue. I have lots of programs that deal with cookies. A java applet that md5 fingerprints my PC and then sends the MD5 sum in a GET request back to the server, yea, I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that, and yes that's Sun's fault. But I don't run java because it's too damned insecure so wtf do I care?
I'd be perfectly willing for most archs to be dropped for release considerations. In all practicality, greater than 90% of the people using Debian won't be using anything beyond the 4 archs.
This proposal is natually very release oriented. There're so many different systems supported by Debian it's damn near impossible to reduce the RC bug count accross all of them to be able to release. Ignoring RC bugs on all but the four main purely for release purposes would really help the rest of us out. Anybody installing Debian on m68k or alpha just flat out needs to buy a new computer, and anybody installing on Arm will probably be better suited by LFS instead. Very few people will be running a production server on mips, mipsel, or sparc (although, sparc more than the other two). Which only leaves s390, the platform with the weakest Debian support, and they've probably already been told by their boss to run Red Hat anyway, and if they haven't and do in fact get the luxury of running Debian on s390 probably aren't going to be too perturbed with not using an officially supported platform (since I don't think they complain too loudly now anyway).
So I'd like to keep them all around as unoffically supported, but yea for the sake of releasing on 4 platforms I don't mind dropping the others.
Translation: There's nothing wrong with Firefox. There is a severe bug in Sun's JRE, which is about the 3rd java vulnerability in a row that's alarmed me. I'm starting to think that running Java is just like running any other untrusted remotely loaded executable.
It wasn't slashdot. It shows up just fine in both Firefox and Safari on OS X.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Mozilla Foundation formed because Netscape/AOL wanted Mozilla to become a community project that the corporation has no responsibility for?
If the Mozilla Foundation has no responsibility for the Mozilla codebase, just what is the point of their existence?
I say desolve the foundation permanently. Give project leaders direct control over their codebases. Fear will keep the users in line! Fear of this battlesta-- . . . no, wait, I mean Microsoft, fear of Microsoft.
Seriously though, if the Mozilla Foundation doesn't want control/responsibility of the Mozilla codebase they should just simply disband and give the code back to the community. Someone will pick it up.
Which can be roughly restated as "only by using this boring piece of crap Windows box am I able to stay disciplined long enough to get my homework done."
I actually wasn't referring to its usability. I was referring to the fact that Windows users by and large are unwilling to try. They claim Linux isn't ready for the desktop because "it doesn't do X like Windows does". Well of course not, that's because it's not Windows. They're afraid to try something different for the simple fact that it's different and they feel intimidated by that.
I've been using OS X for a year, Linux for 5 years, and I used various incarnations of Windows for 6 years before that. On a large screen I'm most productive on either Linux or OS X. On a small screen I absolutely need Exposé. And Windows, well XP is not bad as long as I only install putty and use it as a way to open many shells on a real OS. Even then it's difficult to get any real work done when I'm forced to use Windows. I agree with the author in that I spend more time fighting with Windows to get it to do what I need it to do.
Neither. I personally, due to experience, believe Linux is far superior. I'm using my earlier statement as evidence that Windows users are lazy, incompetent and afraid of the other-os-boogie-man. I've taken 3 computer know-nothings in the past year and put them on Linux (Debian no less). They do their work every day, quite happily and virus/spyware free. All it takes is a little bit of effort.
How about:
d) think that claiming option c covers up the fact that they are actually option b people.
I've been around the block a few times. In my experience, anyone who says "windows is better" and then qualifies it with "for me" either a) attempted to install Linux and failed miserably, or b) never seriously used another operating system (or even used another one for more than 5 minutes). Most windows users couldn't handle Linux if their life depended on it, and have never set their hands on a modern Mac. They do this all the while attempting to trivialize the differences between a UNIX workstation (OS X included) and Windows by saying idiotic things like "they're converging" or "the reason there are no virii for Mac/Linux is because no one uses them".
Give it up people. Let go of your petty prejudices and actually give another OS a real try. Try it to it's fullest potential (like the author of TFA did) and then start talking about which OS is better than another OS.
. . . wait, that's a kernel joke. Crap!
I actually spent several hours researching this because I was getting them in Firefox on OS X, but not Safari or Firefox on Linux. When my roommate started getting them on Linux I was quite surprised.
In every case I eventually tracked it down to either Flash or Java objects loaded into a page that requested a window be opened. Also in every case it seemed to be a well known advertising site that the object originated from.
The reason I never got any in Safari but did in Firefox is because I use Safari as my main browser so I've got PithHelmet installed, which comes with a healthy list of things to block, whereas I use Firefox only for testing so I've got little to nothing listed in my AdBlock rules. At work where I use a Linux desktop I have a healthy list of AdBlock rules.
If you're concerned about your privacy, avoiding ads, or popups you need to have at minimum AdBlock, CookieCuller and X installed for Firefox. If you're using Safari, PithHelmet is absolutely the best.
She's not, and wasn't screwed up, just screwed over. Young musically (or otherwise artistically) inclined people are not lawyers. When the record company comes by with the tantalizing offer of becoming a millionaire most of them don't know enough about business or the world in general to negotiate a contract properly. "Sign this and you'll be rich and famous, the details are just formality, no need to read them".
Think about it. Most "hits" are from artists that are in their early 20's. When have you ever known someone that young to make a fully rational decision? Record companies know the position they are in, and they know full well that they are taking advantage of someone who can't fight back.
Even industry giants have little choice but to shut up and take it. Prince went for many years with no name and referred to only as the artist formerly known as Prince. That happened because he got screwed by his publisher and wasn't even allowed to use his name because even it was under contract. I could go on and on about artists that get screwed. The list is as long as the number of musicians signed by record companies.
The record companies have a stranglehold on the music industry and only a few people are able to get out from under it. The moral of the story here guys is SUPPORT THE ARTISTS, ESPECIALLY INDEPENDANTS. The only way people like Prince, Maria Schneider, or Poe will be able to get out from under the control of record companies is fan support and lots of it.
Unfortunately, most artists aren't able to do anything like this. Case in point Poe (or try the iTunes link) has basically been screwed left and right by Atlantic for the past 5 years. She can't perform any of her own songs until 7 years after her contract expires, and at current, if I understand correctly, she is essentially barred from creating any new music and releasing it without Atlantic's approval.
Even Prince had to bend over and take it. His contract was so bad he wasn't even able to use his performing name until the contract expired.
All of this of course just underscores how screwed up the RIAA is.
If the projector is the "top" and the mac mini is not, would that not mean the projector was number 1 and the mini number 2?
I'm curious what other number 1 "must have" gadgets are on your list.
It was probably cached, which does nothing to help anyone. Any user no matter how long they've been using computers is apt to think that disabling it will make a difference right away. I've been developing websites for close to 10 years, and browser cache is the biggest thorn in my side in that area.
While you can view the certificate in Firefox, it takes a whopping 4 clicks to get the info that shows the page is bogus (double click the lock icon, click security tab, click view cert). The average user will never find it. Even the above average users will be thrown by the General tab which shows the spoofed URL as though it were the real one. If they don't actively hunt down all indications that a site may be spoofed, they're going to be fooled.
What's worse, is that Safari doesn't even give the option to view certificates that it thinks are valid (not expired and signed by a valid root CA).
Ouch.
Computer, where is Commander Data?
Lt. Commander Data is on the Hollodeck.
This is more true than I had realized. I've been milling about the Apple forums lately and I saw a guy who was very upset and frustrated because he couldn't find Windows XP on his iBook..
Sorry, instead of saying FUD, what I really meant to say was "bullshit". FUD is more polite though.
I understand what he said. I think he's full of shit.
FUD FUD FUD. IBM does have it's own operating system to push. It's called AIX, which IBM is swiftly moving away from and pushing Linux so much in favor over. I don't recall IBM making any suggestions that anyone should (or even could) run Linux as a desktop alternative. Even after proclaiming Linux "ready for the desktop" not a single IBM PC was ever sold with Linux as an option, let alone the default or only OS.
No, IBM is only interested in Linux as a replacemnt for AIX. If Windows 3.0 never existed IBM still would have found Linux and they still would have put it on their servers. The only difference is that OS/2 or NeXT would be the dominant desktop OS, and the world wouldn't be overrun with spyware, virii and other malware.
Since they're cooperating so wonderfully, has anybody thought to ask them to stop sending spam?
In that same token, I don't think I'd call a $30 Wal-Mart DVD player exactly "next-gen". I don't even think the "good" $80 players are anywhere close to next-gen either. DVD players are comodity now. When the current class of DVD players was considered "next gen" technology even the crapiest ones were about $500. What do you think the first blue-ray dvd player will cost? Probably about $500 until prices come down (which they will). Yes, you can get a bottom of the line dirt cheap player, but it's bottom of the line, certainly not next generation.
A next gen dvd player, IMHO, should play DVD's, CD's, be combined with a PVR, network with computers in the home, play music, photo slideshows, play games, support 7.1 surround sound, HD-DVD, Blue-Ray, and more. Of those technologies that currently available, the only thing the Mac Mini can't do right off the bat is PVR capability (you need to buy a firewire TV-Tuner for that).
This is also something that Microsoft realizes, that's why there's this big push for the "media PC". Except that the Media PC is $2000. Even if you bought a TV-Tuner for the Mac Mini your total cost is still half the cost of a Windows Media Center PC. And as Steve Jobs said many times in the keynote speech, 2005 is the year of HD. The Mac Mini is HD ready. Windows is not.
So be a cheapskate if you want to. I don't care in the slightest. I've got the rockinest DVD player on the block and it's called a Mac Mini.